Linux, *BSD, Solaris?
 

I'm not sure how to ask this because I sort of know the answer but not really.

What is the difference between Linux (Slackware, Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu etc..., *BSD (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc...) and Solaris?

I know ultimately it's the kernel they use but as far and software and end user stuff what is the difference?

I mean they all consist of the same variety of software to use a command prompt, X server, DE or WM, etc...

So for the end user is there a difference?

Better drivers support for new technologies etc...

Sorry if this seems vague but I hope someone can answer the question.

You would probably get better replies in the BSD or
solaris forums. As these users know more about end user stuff :)

I tried solaris 8 for x86, on a pentium III. It didn't
support most of my hardware. I had to download patches and drivers and do a lot of configurations. THis was back in
the mid 90's. As far as end user stuff, solaris is a powerful unix OS. Solaris is best for programming, CAD
applications, scientific research and other high level
critical work. Solaris works best on their own sun hardware.

FreeBSD, better hardware support than other BSD's. It's
more secure than linux. It's best for servers and workstations. It's behind linux as a desktop, but still
quite good. Installing software is easy with the pkg_add
command. Also, you can use the ports system, to build and compile software. It handles everything for you.

Linux has more hardware support than any BSD OS, because it is more popular. Good for small to mid size servers. Pretty good for a desktop, but still behind windows. THe linux community are constantly working creating kernels and drivers for the new technologies. What may not work today, will work tomorrow.

All these are my personal experiences with these OS. So, if any thing is false, I apologize.

While all three are OpenSource, their development model is the main difference.
BSD and Solaris are designed under a "Cathedral model" with more strict rules, while Linux is more like a "Bazaar" one, with looser rules.
For example when an interface (API) is stable, Solaris commit not to break it in a future version, while Linux doesn't enforce that kind of rules.
Not only the kernel.
Unlike Linux which is just a kernel with GNU userland utilities, both *BSD and Solaris code base include their core userland utilities. GNU ones are also available, but aren't mandatory nor the default.
Yes, not that much difference for the end user, except when administrative tasks are involved.

Here is an interesting report showing the desktop experience gap is narrowing, and what still need to be done with Solaris.
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/projec.../desktop_gaps/
This is still an area where Linux sometimes leads, because many Linux drivers are only released under GPL, which forbid their use on Solaris so they need to be rewritten from scratch. (This will change if Solaris is dual licenced with GPLv3)

Solaris isn't Open Source. BSD & Linux are.

For an administrator it's not "ultimately" at all. Think of jails, the newly implemented "audit" etc.

Some things do tend to "strike out" for new BSD users.. i.e. Bash is not the default root shell & others.

Linux tends to be the most user friendly to users and admins. Solaris tends to be the most stable and scalable. BSD generally speaking is in the middle on those items. I've run them all at one time or another, it's just about picking the one that best supports the application.

Personally, I was a long time Linux user who occasionally used BSD. Then I started using Solaris and have migrated almost complete to it, except for a few items here and there where Linux/BSD are the better choice. I could quite easily run the same stuff on Linux or BSD, but it's just not my preferred setup anymore.

According to Sun's website Solaris 10 is Open Source, however I don't know about Solaris 9,8,etc...

Have a look at http://src.opensolaris.org/source/ to revise your opinion.

I've revised it, and stick to it. Are you under the impression that Solaris and OpenSolaris are the same thing?

@ nymusicman: where exactly on the Sun website does it state that Solaris is, in fact Open Source?

I partly got your point, but I'm missing exactly what you want to prove.

They are indeed not exactly the same thing. Solaris is used to name Sun's binary distributions while OpenSolaris is a source code repository and the community around it.

FYI, OpenSolaris is based on Solaris 10 source code. Enhancements from OpenSolaris are regularly back-ported to the Solaris 10 code base.

The next version of Solaris, Solaris 11?, will definitely be built upon OpenSolaris.

So in my opinion, not only Solaris is Open Source, but even the beta of its next release is.

Exactly what I'm trying to prove is that Solaris is not open source. It's mixed open/closed source.

That is correct, but you are unfair.

Aren't several (most?) Linux and BSD distributions also a mix of open and closed source software ?

Moreover, the parts not released under open source are mostly unrequired or obsolete.

I believe the reason why they are unreleased as source code is that Sun doesn't own the license (eg. Nvidia or other H/W drivers, CDE : colicensed by IBM, HP, Novell, etc ...)

You certainly can build an OpenSolaris based distribution out of OpenSolaris and other strictly open source code.

i tend to think in this way ...

you probably can see people are more likely to have both linux and solaris or bsd and solaris but not linux , bsd and solaris ...


//yup , i know its as vague as yours ...


.

http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/

Clearly what they are doing here is comparing their Open Source Solaris OS to Commercial Unix and Linux Distros. They are not saying that Solaris is a commercial OS.

Not to be rude but before making a comment based on assumption you should read a little of their advertising.