Hello, I know very little about Solaris.

The subject line sayas it all.

Thanks

I actually almost talk myself into installing it again yesterday.

Solaris, is not Linux, or BSD. in other words free software and codecs for it are very few, and hard to find. It takes a lot longer to shut down, if you get in a hurry and it is installed on a laptop. Like me.

Looks nice though, it takes up your system as if it is MicroSoft, that is to say it thinks it is special and it is the only OS you need, so its not designed for easy dual booting setup, if you're into that sort of thing.

Using the docs for it in what commands to do what, as some are different is not that hard.

if you can install it on a VM and check it out first. I'd do that first before committing to it for an install onto a hdd.

that is my thoughts on it at the moment.

I think I will skip solaris as it's not as intuitive to use as a desktop like linux is.

Solaris would become boring if I can't do much with it as a desktop. Solaris was meant for enterprise server solutions anyway. I think I will stick with linux as my main operating system.

Thanks

and this 11.4 from 10.x it is very notice-ably slower, like a turtle with three legs slow. I installed it to vbox yesterday and it took over three tries, and each try, I did not put a timer to it, but booting it after installed finished. its just a lot slower then 10.x was.

It is more for a server then anything else. they even removed the desktop to the install, it is now a post add on.
if you have time to just install different OS'es just to see what you see, is not a bad thing, and staying with Linux is not a bad idea either.

Linux is and always be my main OS. Thanks

NP

Oracle Solaris has degraded a lot. The free Solaris...es are actually nice though, even considering desktop usage.
Dedoimedo tested the OpenIndiana flavor a while ago.

That is not a very good criterion to judge whether or not an OS is primarily meant for servers. It is the norm with the BSDs and at least one Linux distribution (Debian) can be installed that way. The purpose is to let users set up the OS for different uses: server, desktop, e-mail client, etc.

1 members found this post helpful.

it is an inanimate 'object' I can judge it how ever I please right or wrong. it is my option, but a person, Don't judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

they are all servers Linux, Solaris, BSD, IBM stuff.. dummy terminals were a thing ... ttys .. hum.... why it still got tty's to provided a service to dummy terminals.

http://www.linfo.org/dumb_terminal.html

Why would you want to judge things wrongly? Most people judge things on their merits. If they discover their opinions are inaccurate, based on ignorance, based on erroneous information, etc., they adjust their opinions accordingly. "Right or wrong this is my opinion and I'll share it with others regardless if it is right, wrong, good or bad" does not leave room for discussion, does it?

I cannot decipher the meaning. Something must have been lost in translation.

I imagine such set-ups can still be found in some work environments. That brings us back to the point of allowing users to set up their systems for their needs, not mine, yours or the next door neighbour's. Your argument could be extended by typical computer user to claim that the presence of a terminal indicates a server system, because desktop users do not need terminals.

When I tried Open Solaris, (twice, years apart), I found the command line rather long winded, especially when trying to mount external disks. That to me, suggests that it is very much server orientated, setup once & just run it.

You will find the BSDs much more Linux like regarding that sort of thing, & can make a very good laptop or desktop system, as well as being a server.

ignornate or not, Solaris is more server, to the point they even removed the desktop to version 11.4 if you want to run it as a desktop knock yourself out. it cannot do much of anything anyways, no video, etc.. it is more for a server then not. that is my educated option.

it is a Unix based OS . so yeah it is meant to be a server, just like Linux, and all of these other ones, WINDOWS (and Apples) on the other hand is meant to be a desktop. they even have a Windows server to separate the two.

what came first the server or the desktop computer?

figure it out.

yet even Windows has it dos box command line, similar to a terminal. so what now?

The mainframe.

oh yeah forgot about that one.

Even the PDPs where Unix was developed were mainframes.