Talk:Solaris (operating system)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Open source???->not all parts are

some people wrote on this page that solaris10 was open-source

that means that the os is complitely open-source and that's not true

for example [Mac osx] that has a large part of it in open-source is "Closed source (Darwin foundation is open source)"

open solaris is open-source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.17.39 (talk • contribs)

I would recommend on going on [1]

Subjective statement

User:Merphant added, over a year ago:

Solaris has a reputation for being extremely stable and powerful.

That sounds too subjective to me, at least on its own. It's also known to be slow and inherently buggy, at least in some respects, but such a clause isn't on the page (rightfully). I think these kinds of generalizations should be avoided. Can I remove this? --Shallot 18:59, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Freeness

Solaris was proprietary rather than free software,
but both binary and source versions have been freely
downloadable at various times.

Solaris is still and will remain proprietary. The was makes it seem like it isn't anymore. Source availability does not free software make. OpenSolaris and Solaris will not be the same thing since there is plenty of code that Sun has licensed from others in it that they cannot release. --Pmsyyz 05:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's the best way to mark up quoted material from an article on a talk page anyway? I didn't really see anything at Editing help.

The link to where Sun confirmes it will make Solaris free software is broken. Additionally, I doubt Solaris will be free software according to the FSF definition. It seems misleading then, calling it free software, unless someone can point to any concrete evidence that the FSF has approved the license as a free license. --80.202.208.6 00:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right here.Will 20:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

How about a reference to OpenSolaris? -- HnZeKtO

Differences between SunOS and Solaris

There are many differences between SunOS and Solaris and I don't think that this article addresses that. Maybe we should split the article into two with a SunOS page and a Solaris page since they are two completely different operating systems. -DNewhall

I second this. SunOS and Solaris are NOT the same operating systems. -- Eck

I do not agree. It was basically a marketing ploy to rename it Solaris $_, and even though in the early days this might have meant some differences, they are treated identically now. Even so to the point where SunOS is only used to refer to pre-Solaris days. If you wish to generate discussion about the different installation packages, eg Core install, etc please add! -- SusanRoy 05:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually...

SunOS = name of the core OS

Solaris = SunOS, plus all the extra stuff around it. -- Cailin Coilleach

Would it be like Mac OS X, then, where SunOS is to Solaris as Darwin is to Mac OS X? – Mipadi 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Other Features/Addons for possible discussion

Since I am new to wiki, I would like to present some features or uses that This page may like to note.. Can anyone help me find the appropriate place to pop these in?

• Jumpstart and Jumpstart Enterprise Toolkit (JET) framework
• JASS - Security toolkit
• 64-Bit SPARC architecture and Solaris - one of the first to use.

-- SusanRoy 05:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Solaris vs OpenSolaris

There's a buttload of stuff in Solaris 10 that isn't in OpenSolaris - they're not yet the same thing at all. (I think OpenSolaris only just got X11.) Solaris 10 is the good old proprietary license as usual (several pages of fine print) and Open Solaris is CDDL. Sun appears to be serious about OpenSolaris and getting the kernel developers and the users interacting as a community. In the meantime, however, Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris are very different things - David Gerard 17:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

don't think that solaris is open source as statued on the page...i change that now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.17.39 (talk • contribs)

Article title - O/Environment or O/System?

I suggest the title should be changed to Solaris Operating System. Either that or the opening phrase changed back to Solaris Operating Environment. The Sun page uses O/System. Nurg 23:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that Sun calls it an "Operating System" and that's the industry standard term as well, and since there's been no negative comment to the idea, I intend to move this to "Solaris Operating System" shortly. Plan is to move the page (moving the existing redirect page out of the way if necessary), and update certain pages that today say and point to "Solaris Operating Environment." Over time, other pages that say "Operating Environment" should also be updated. --NapoliRoma 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sun did until recently, officially call Solaris the "Solaris Operating Environment". There are still plenty instances of it on the Sun website - see, for example, the Solaris 9 Reference Guide. I suggest we at least keep a redirect with that title and refrain from revisionism when discussing Solaris in a historical context. Letdorf 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

Agreed. Sorry for not mentioning that my understanding was that the software would automatically create a "Solaris Operating Environment" redirect page, which would take care of not losing the older name. If for some reason it doesn't, I'll create it.--NapoliRoma 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, the move failed, as I expected it might, as the existing "Solaris Operating System" redirect page has been edited in the past. I've entered a move request, and have also added the below discussion section. --NapoliRoma 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Solaris Operating System. -- Kjkolb 11:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Solaris Operating Environment → Solaris Operating System – Rationale: Sun used "Solaris Operating Environment" for a few years (approx 1999-2002), but began using "Solaris Operating System" again starting in February 2003 (except in legacy packaging, docs, etc. for releases previously called "Solaris Operating Environment" -- Solaris 7/8/9). The current release, Solaris 10 is called an OS by Sun, not an OE. —NapoliRoma 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support Mipadi 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Maybe name should be "Solaris (Operating system)" ? -- Frap 21:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

this user says that we talk too much about solaris in general and not solaris->solaris10 (open-solaris is another os!!!but it shares many things with solaris10)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other Features/Addons for possible discussion

Since I am new to wiki, I would like to present some features or uses that This page may like to note.. Can anyone help me find the appropriate place to pop these in?

• Jumpstart and Jumpstart Enterprise Toolkit (JET) framework
• JASS - Security toolkit
• 64-Bit SPARC architecture and Solaris - one of the first to use.

-- SusanRoy 05:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

---

post it,other will corect if there are problems...

it's only in completed article that you have to be becarefull when you post

personaly:

• i usualy go in the talk page when the article is finished(such as microsoft one) and that i want to add something visible(not just a corection) because it's difficult to add something without chamging the wole plan
• i usualy add sections with warning such text_talking_about_something(to be verified) and_about_something_other with articles that are well done but where i can add something (the case of a lot of tecnical articles that have a good plan but where there is a lot of lack in the content(too generalist,sough presentation) )

so...it may depends on:

• the plan
• the content

and don't folow theses rules by the letter...i'm only a user and the human apreciacion bet all the rules(that's why in some pages explaining all the wikipedia conduct,forums conducts... you have guidelines,not rules...) searching a little bit you can find theses guidelines on wikipedia pages...mabe in the comunity? [2] ->browse content from this page and you'll get interesting things...such as guideline,policies and such thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.17.39 (talk • contribs)

Expanded "See also" section?

The "See also" section currently links to four articles:

• Comparison of operating systems
• Common Development and Distribution License
• Solaris Volume Manager
• Commercial and community Linux distributions by the same vendor

I suggest we should also link to Trusted Solaris.

Here's an attempt at a complete list of the articles about subsystems that are currently part of Solaris:

• DTrace
• Java Desktop System
• Service Management Facility
• Solaris Containers
• Solaris Multiplexed I/O
• Solaris Volume Manager
• ZFS
• In addition, I plan to start an article about Doors (computing) soon.

Only one of these currently appears in the "See also" section. I suggest that either all or none should appear there. (I vote for "all".)

Maybe we could have two columns titled (say) "Solaris in context" and "Subsystems".

Comments? Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of those, especially in the second set, seem to be components in or related to Solaris. Why not link them in the article where relevant, rather than just making a huge "See also" list? – Mipadi 13:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The "See also" section should only contain links not appearing in the article itself, and everything in the second list is already linked (as are CDDL and SVM, so they really should be removed from "See also").

Here's an alternate idea: how about creating a "Solaris Operating System" subcategory under "Sun software", which could then be used for all the subsystem articles? --NapoliRoma 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)

Sorry, I should have said that these are all already in the article, mostly in the big table under "versions". I guess what I'm suggesting is a unified list of things that distinguish Solaris from other Unixes, which, as User:NapoliRoma says, should not be in the "See also" section. In fact, it could look like this:

Notable features of Solaris include DTrace, Service Management Facility, Solaris Containers, Solaris Multiplexed I/O, Solaris Volume Manager, and ZFS.

Perhaps it could go at the end of the "Versions" section? We should also remove Solaris Volume Manager from "See also" and add Trusted Solaris there. Regards, CWC(talk) 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There being no objection so far, I've added a single-sentence list of WP articles about notable features of Solaris, near the end of the versions section. I also removed the now-redundant listing of Solaris Volume Manager in "See also" and put Trusted Solaris at the start of that section. Corrections and improvements are welcome. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Since all of these features except for doors are listed and linked in the table above, it seems redundant where it is. I think it'd make more sense to have it appear before the table. If that's done, the links within the table itself should be removed -- which would incidentally fix a minor weirdness in the table where some features are currently linked in the release where they're introduced, not in their first appearance in the table.

(I still like the idea I proposed earlier of creating a "Solaris Operating System" subcategory that all these feature articles could belong to; unless someone can think of a reason not to, I'll do this as time permits. That would be in addition to, not instead of, what Chris has done already.) --NapoliRoma 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please check my work

I've started an article on Doors (computing), and added a paragraph about Sun's <ahem> unique approach to extended file attributes at Extended file attributes#Solaris. I'd welcome comments and/or corrections. (I've added a link to Extended file attributes#Solaris in the Solaris 9 row of the Versions table.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Maybe we should move this article to Solaris (operating system), as "Solaris Operating System"? Solaris seems to be a more common use (or we could use "Solaris Enterprise System"...), and I can't find many official uses of the term in all uppercase. If "Operating System" isn't actually part of the real name, but a disamiguating suffix, then it should definitely be fixed - I'm fairly sure the naming guidelines frown on that. If no one objects, in a few days I think I'll do the move. -- Gwern (contribs) 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Solaris (operating system)" is a better name for the article. Note that Solaris (operating system) exists as a redirect and has multiple edits, so we'll need an admin to do the move. (The article used to be called "Solaris Enterprise System""Solaris Operating Environment". See #Article title - O/Environment or O/System? and #Requested move above for the reasons why it was moved to "Solaris Operating System".) Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC) who edited to get the old name correct 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC); thanks, NapoliRoma!

(The former name for the article was "Solaris Operating Environment" -- "Solaris Enterprise System" is an umbrella name covering the Solaris OS + infrastructure software, and doesn't exist as an article or redirect right now, nor do I think it really should.)

Official Sun naming is "The Solaris Operating System", with the words Operating System capitalized. As with all trademarks, "Solaris" the trademark is an adjective that needs to be associated with a noun, and the noun for the OS is "Operating System" (there are other Sun trademarked names beginning with Solaris, such as the aforementioned Solaris Enterprise System, Solaris ZFS, Solaris Dynamic Tracing, Solaris Live Upgrade, etc., etc.).

My opinion is that the name of the article isn't that important -- either Solaris Operating System or Solaris (operating system) would work, and whichever name was chosen, the other would need to exist as a redirect anyway, so it wouldn't matter from an accessibility point of view. Since it's already Solaris Operating System, and it just got renamed to that two months ago, I would vote on the side of "less churn" and say leave it be. --NapoliRoma 16:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the official name seems to be rather unstable or odd, so I'm not sure that constantly following it would result in less churn (assuming that that is a bad thing) than would simply moving it to a more neutral and agnostic name. -- Gwern (contribs) 22:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Unstable" -- it's changed twice in 14 years. I'm not sure if that justifies a second change to the article name in two months. "Odd" -- "Operating System" is an odd designation for an operating system? I'm also unclear on what "neutral and agnostic" would mean here -- are there "pro" and "anti" OS/OE camps who might hold a PoV? --NapoliRoma 23:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NapoliRoma has convinced me that staying with "Solaris Operation System" is the wisest course. Cheers, CWC(talk) 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Filtered Edit History

For myself and anyone else trying to track edits not related to That Website, here's a list of all such edits since 6 September.

When (UTC)	Who	Diff
10:41, 8 September 2006	"CWC"	Add single-sentence listing notable features; ...
19:28, 10 September 2006	NapoliRoma	Added ref for Linux binary support; reformatted other refs; copyedit
19:28, 14 September 2006	NapoliRoma	Solaris 7 and 8 end-of-support dates etc
03:43, 17 September 2006	201.80.42.110	source_model in infobox
23:47, 22 September 2006	Byte me	Heading style fix to "Desktop environments"
00:32, 29 September 2006	Mike92591	Link to "x86-64" instead of "AMD64" & "EMT64"
14:23, 29 September 2006	Letdorf	Avoid link redirect *and* obsolete terminology

Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (Later updates not signed)

External Links

Heading added CWC(talk) 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC) and changed by same 10:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should really be sprotected for a while. Little by little people's lives are being used up reverting this stupidity. Chris Cunningham 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in in either direction, but since the topic has come up: other than their, er, great enthusiasm, how is Sun Country different from the other external sites listed, especially SunHELP or Solaris Central? --NapoliRoma 16:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This one just seemed particularly blatant. I have no problem with killing most all external links in general, so if you think those ones are of roughly the same (lack of) value to the article then feel free to remove them as well. Chris Cunningham 22:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not worked up about it one way or another, was just feeling out whether there should be more consistency here. I agree that the SC person/people are making a very strong case for being treated as spammers, but in general the number of external links seems manageable today. If it got way out of hand I'd say nuke 'em all.

(As a side note: I decided to take a quick look at WP:EL to get a refresh on what the policy/guidelines are -- hoo boy. Apparently all heck has broken loose over there recently.) --NapoliRoma 23:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

When Sun Country was added a few weeks ago, I took a look at it and was 'extremely underwhelmed', whereas sunfreeware.com is very useful (indeed, pretty much essential) and the other ELs look useful. I've been assuming that the other reverters reached the same conclusion, but we really should have discussed it here. Me, I'm happy to keep reverting until we get those IPs banned. What do other contributors think? Cheers (except that NapoliRoma's side note is not at all cheery), CWC(talk) 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep reverting it as well; many hands make light work. I am appalled that Sun Country is so persistent in the face of so different people reverting the link.

My beef with http://www.ilkda.com/ is that the site is only a link farm. Of the many links on the site, only a small percentage go to sites with any Solaris specific information.

If there are any valuable links, Wikipedia should link to the actual sources of information rather than to this repository of links. Sun Country may be useful as a learning aid over on Wikibooks, but unless it provides content, isnt encyclopedic. John Vandenberg 03:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Only a link farm" — exactly right, and very annoying. More to the point, I've just left a Template:Spam3-n message on User talk:206.170.104.15. Template:Spam4-n is the final warning; any spam edits after that and we can get that IP blocked ... which might do some good. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Citation needed" for SunOS vs. Solaris

There's currently a {{cn}} tag on the following sentence:

While SunOS 4.1.x micro releases were retroactively named Solaris 1 by Sun, the name Solaris is almost exclusively used to refer to SVR4-derived SunOS 5.0 and later.

I can't picture there being any definitive source to back this up -- the only thing I could think of is a Google search, which turns up 250,000 of "Solaris 1" hits compared to 6 million "SunOS" hits. Kind of crude, a bit flawed... and also smells like original research.

Or would http://kb.iu.edu/data/agjq.html suffice? "The term "Solaris" typically refers to the SVR4 releases (SunOS version 5 and higher, and Solaris version 2 and higher) exclusively." I'm sure there are a bunch of similar quotes out there, but none of them feels particularly authoritative. --NapoliRoma 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

License

Surely "binary" is not actually considered the license? --Dillona 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it used as a shorthand for proprietary software licenses in general, since what you can get are just the 'binary' form of it and nothing of the source. Updated it to be more clear. --Gwern (contribs) 02:54 17 December 2006 (GMT)