LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > Other *NIX
User Name
Password
Other *NIX This forum is for the discussion of any UNIX platform that does not have its own forum. Examples would include HP-UX, IRIX, Darwin, Tru64 and OS X.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-03-2005, 08:36 AM   #1
TigerLinux
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04
Posts: 1,731

Rep: Reputation: 30
Any UNIX can be installed on intelx86 based PC?


got any unix OS i can install on intel PC?
 
Old 10-03-2005, 08:51 AM   #2
Ahmed
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: München, Germany
Distribution: Slackware, Arch
Posts: 386

Rep: Reputation: 41
Solaris 10. First check out the HCL (hardware compatibility list) on Sun's website (www.sun.com) to see if your hardware is supported though.. You'll have to register for free, then you can download Solaris.

-A
 
Old 10-03-2005, 09:04 AM   #3
Brian Knoblauch
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: OpenSuse Tumbleweed
Posts: 288

Rep: Reputation: 39
Other options are FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD...
 
Old 10-03-2005, 09:05 AM   #4
TigerLinux
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04
Posts: 1,731

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
is solaris more stable than linux?
 
Old 10-03-2005, 09:17 AM   #5
Brian Knoblauch
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: OpenSuse Tumbleweed
Posts: 288

Rep: Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally posted by TigerLinux
is solaris more stable than linux?
Well, hard to say. My Linux box gets rebooted so frequently due to the continuous stream of kernel updates...
 
Old 10-03-2005, 11:36 AM   #6
pegasys
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: warmond, netherlands
Distribution: SuSE 9.0
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: 0
OpenBSD - www.openbsd.org
NetBSD - www.netbsd.org
freeBSD - www.freebsd.org

I run OpenBSD myself on my server, been running stable the last 16 months without reboot.

Last edited by pegasys; 10-03-2005 at 11:41 AM.
 
Old 10-03-2005, 11:51 AM   #7
Valhalla
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Atlanta
Distribution: Gentoo 2005.1, Ubuntu 5.10
Posts: 267

Rep: Reputation: 30
Stable is highly subjective. I've only had 1 kernel panic ever with linux, although X and various user daemons crash all the time.
 
Old 10-03-2005, 01:53 PM   #8
MensaWater
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 7,829
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668
Not so much stable as static.

Solaris not being open source is only developed by Sun so they control its releases and changes. This makes them less frequent which can be a bad thing if you want the latest greatest toy but a good thing if you prefer it.

The x86 "Unix" I had the best luck with was SCO Unix though its been a few years since I worked with that. I worked a fair amount with Solaris but it was their SPARC based systems so a somewhat different animal.

The main reason to choose something like Solaris or SCO over something like Linux or BSD is support from the maker. They'll even give you contracts with uptime SLAs and response times but the better these are the more they cost. Also for uptime SLAs they'll often want to specify exactly how you can lay things out.

Since there are now commercially supported versions of Linux such as RedHat AS out there support may not be your main factor.

Many organizations are taking a mixed approach. Large databases on commerical Unix (HP-UX, Solaris or AIX) on RISC based hardware and applications on commercial Linux (RedHat, Suse) on x86 based hardware. It all depends on what you want to do.
 
Old 10-03-2005, 01:59 PM   #9
Ahmed
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: München, Germany
Distribution: Slackware, Arch
Posts: 386

Rep: Reputation: 41
Some sources say that Solaris is even better and more productive than Linux (Check it out here.) I installed it and it really seems very promising, but I couldn't get the friggin Internet to work (still working on it)..

-A
 
Old 10-04-2005, 05:54 AM   #10
jlliagre
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Outside Paris
Distribution: Solaris 11.4, Oracle Linux, Mint, Tribblix, Ubuntu/WSL
Posts: 9,774

Rep: Reputation: 469Reputation: 469Reputation: 469Reputation: 469Reputation: 469
Quote:
is solaris more stable than linux?
Generally yes, Solaris developers always give priority to stability/conformance/reliability, while Linux developers are more focused on speed and features, sometimes at the expense of stability.
Quote:
Solaris not being open source is only developed by Sun so they control its releases and changes. This makes them less frequent which can be a bad thing if you want the latest greatest toy but a good thing if you prefer it.
Solaris is no more closed source since last june and the release of OpenSolaris.org.
SolarisExpress releases are available since one year an a half, every two or three month, most of the freewares running on top of Solaris are made available as fast as with Linux, BSDs or other O/S, so I certainly won't call this O/S "static".
 
Old 10-04-2005, 06:31 AM   #11
syg00
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Distribution: Lots ...
Posts: 18,765

Rep: Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165Reputation: 3165
Mmmm - I have Solaris 10 on my test (i.e. play) box.
Put it on, brought it up, and the (user) administration side of it was such a pain, I very nearly trashed it, and reused the space. Fortunately it's still there, as I found a reference to an eBook in another post a couple of days back.

Never having used Unix I found it quite a bit different, but I'm prepared to admit the "vendor stability" has some attraction - it's why I decided to install and look at it.
Be prepared to spend some time on it - and *DON'T* let it default on install, else it'll wipe the entire disk.
Cute, real cute ...

I was lucky - I never trust anybody.
 
Old 10-04-2005, 07:56 AM   #12
MensaWater
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 7,829
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668
As I recall Sun didn't release Solaris under GPL. I've seen a couple of articles that suggest there are gotchas in the license they did use if they decide later they don't want it to be open source. Since I haven't seen the license I'm not really sure but it makes me nervous when a for profit company makes something available as "open" then decides that the license used by most other "open" items doesn't offer enough protection to them. Of course that could just be lawyers arguing with each other over what the meaning of "is" is.

Anyway didn't mean to bad mouth Solari. Used it quite a bit over the last 5 years on SPARC hardware. I'll admit I prefer HP-UX on PA-RISC but that may just be familiarity since I've been doing that for more than 10 years. Just seems to me if you're going to an open source for x86 its best to stick with the established ones like Linux or BSD. I do think however Sun does better support for its OS than RedHat does for its commercial version of Linux.

It reminds me of the answer I got years ago when I asked a vendor why one would choose tar over cpio or cpio over tar and he answered: "Religion". Basically whichever one you think works best DOES work best for YOU.
 
Old 10-04-2005, 08:09 AM   #13
Brian Knoblauch
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: OpenSuse Tumbleweed
Posts: 288

Rep: Reputation: 39
The only downside I ran into with Solaris (years ago), was that I couldn't DO anything with it There just wasn't much functionality built in. So it's probably ideal for single purpose servers, especially where the plan is to purchase the software to run on it. I seem to remember that there wasn't even a C compiler with it?
 
Old 10-04-2005, 08:32 AM   #14
MensaWater
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 7,829
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668Reputation: 1668
Right - they don't recompile the kernel - they just load modules/configs into it so don't need a compiler out of the box. You can buy one though. Likely there is gcc available for it but I haven't used it. And of course since there's a difference between the x86 and SPARC stuff it may be the distributions are different. I haven't used their x86 so don't know but would think trying to be open source would imply shipping a compiler to do something with that source.

On HP-UX where one DOES recompile the kernel they only give you a cc good enough for that purpose. For meaningful development you have to buy their ANSI-C or install gcc.

But if you're doing development then worrying about stability of the server is pointless anyway. Most of the issues I've seen in Unix/Linux occur only when something changes and most of those changes are in the applications rather than the OS/hardware.
 
Old 10-04-2005, 08:50 AM   #15
Brian Knoblauch
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: OpenSuse Tumbleweed
Posts: 288

Rep: Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally posted by jlightner
But if you're doing development then worrying about stability of the server is pointless anyway. Most of the issues I've seen in Unix/Linux occur only when something changes and most of those changes are in the applications rather than the OS/hardware.
True, however the problem I had was that I would be compiling some of my server side software from sources... (BIND, Sendmail, Qpopper, etc.)
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
want to mount a remote unix-based file system to fc2, nfs the answer? how? parv Fedora 3 09-23-2004 12:28 PM
setting up a unix-based wireless home network name_in_use450 Linux - Wireless Networking 0 08-18-2004 07:21 PM
best unix based software for a laptop ( and how to install it) NicholasWatkins Linux - Laptop and Netbook 1 04-13-2004 05:20 PM
A few Unix based server's on a PII @ 401Mhz .. litle help plz tga-crew Linux - Software 4 12-28-2003 10:30 AM
When UNIX based OS'es be more popular than Windows? Eits0 Linux - General 12 05-18-2002 01:02 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > Other *NIX

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration