Talk:Solaris (operating system)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solaris (operating system) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Requested move #2

Resolved. Page moved. CWC 02:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Solaris Operating System → Solaris (operating system) — Consistency, ease of piping links; usually referred to as simply "Solaris", even by Sun. intgr 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. - Cyrus XIII 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Sun seems to alternatively refer to it as Solaris Operating System and simply Solaris on its website. Solaris, as noted right above me, is a more common form of the name, and I think it would be simpler to just call the article "Solaris (operating system)". – Mipadi 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. AFAICT from poking around sun.com, Sun don't use the "Solaris" name for anything but the OS, so the common name is unambiguous and shorter. (To expand something the nom wrote, [[Solaris (operating system)|]] will be equivalent to [[Solaris (operating system)|Solaris]] — neat, hey?) CWC 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support and moved per WP:SNOW. —Ruud 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

[edit] Numbering

Most recent releases of Solaris, such as 8, 9 or 10, are referred to as SunOS 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 in the operating system using the uname command not 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodendahl (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 September 2007

This turns out not to be the case:
% uname -sr
SunOS 5.10
%
--NapoliRoma 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I can confirm that as well - on Solaris 7, 8 and 10 boxes here they all report 5.7, 5.8 and 5.10 as their version -66.181.254.202 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] file systems in solaris

what filesystems are supported by solaris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.246.100 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Solaris uses an extended version of the Unix File System for disk storage. (Sun added journaling to UFS in Solaris 7, so it's not the standard UFS that came with SVR4.) Of course, it also supports FAT16, FAT32 and ISO 9660, for portable media rather than main storage. It's not like Linux, where you have several well-supported disk file systems to choose from.
Solaris also supports a variety of non-disk file systems, including tmpfs and procfs.
There are about a dozen virtual filesystems that are normally used in Solaris to provide various facilities. Neither tmpfs nor procfs are the names of any of them (maybe you were thinking of Linux). Triskelios (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Third-party open source projects have added ext2fs support to OpenSolaris (and maybe Solaris itself); I hope to try that out in a month or two. Cheers, CWC 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Read-only NTFS support is also provided through a separate project.
...and ZFS.--NapoliRoma 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Yes, of course. How embarrassing. CWC 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Other filesystems include NFS (of course), CIFS (SMB), Veritas' VxFS, OpenAFS. UDF is also supported for media. Read-only NTFS is available in addition to ext2fs. Nevada is moving towards using ZFS for root filesystems by default (as other distributions already do), which will be backported to S10. Triskelios (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget the Lustre cluster filesystem, which was bought by Sun in 2007. Raysonho (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Single UNIX Specification

If Solaris is cirtified against Single UNIX Specification does that mean OpenSolaris is as well??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.138.57 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. (I'd say it depends on what you mean by "OpenSolaris", but the answer is no for any meaning I can think of.)
An OS in general isn't certified; specific releases are. So, Solaris 10, a release, is certified against the SUS. There is no release called "OpenSolaris" anything that has been through the certification process.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's right, "OpenSolaris" is, as far as I'm aware, the name for the open code base for which the Solaris OS releases are created, not a distinct operating system in and of itself. mike4ty4 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The introductory paragraph contradicts the artlce itself

In the intro paragraph, "As of this writing, Hewlett-Packard is unable to support the platform in commercial settings." is stated, however, later in the article Solaris_(operating_system)#Supported_architectures specifically mentions HP as a supported vendor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.254.202 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that HP does not support Solaris; It is also true that Sun supports Solaris on HP systems. Not contradictory, but maybe can be made less confusing. I think that part of the lead should be reworked; "licensed" is probably not the right term and "as of this writing" forces you to study the edit history to find out when "this writing" was.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And here I thought my HP printer wouldn't work if I installed Solaris. ~Jonathan (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)