On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:23:49 GMT
Anon <anon@none.co.us> wrote:

> From an SA's perspective, Solaris always seemed half-baked to me. Maybe
> 10 is better. I come from an HP-UX background, and working with Solaris
> 8, I can't believe you still deal with disk slices, that there is no
> reasonable equivalent to HP-UX's ioscan, etc. Everything seems to take a
> lot more effort than in HP-UX.

Solaris Volume Manager has been included since Solaris 9, and was
available (for free) with Solaris 8. It's just that one isn't forced to
use it like with AIX or HP-UX. But then, HP-UX got kernel modules much
later than Solaris, so what you gain in the swings you lose in the
roundabouts. It's basically what you're used to that defines how you
perceive the approach of another variant.

The real nice thing about Solaris is that it's available for SPARC and
x86, so you can (if you wish), run the whole show on one OS. If you set
up a Jumpstart environment, installing a new machine is essentially
done the moment you plug it into the network. Combine that with SunRays
for people who only causally use their machines, and your sysadmin work
becomes very easy indeed. Single OS, single skills set.

HP-UX is a nice server OS, but only that - not so much because it
can't be used on the desktop, but because HP has embraced MS Windows as
their desktop OS, and prefers killing of its own (superior) OSes to
please Redmond. It's a pity.

Take care,

--
Stefaan
--
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh