Thank you guys for your timely feedback, as always.
I'll be honest with you: the reason I wanted to try Solaris or any xBSD is because I'm tired of one of my friend telling me that his OSX is true Unix legacy and my Ubuntu Linux is not.
For one, I wanted to show him I can install and run these Unix systems on my laptop just as easily as he can play with OSX on his (way overpriced) Mac. Second, I wanted to know if they are really that different from Linux after all and actually better in everyday use. It may not be the noblest reason, but I basically want to crush my friend's pride and kick it back where it belongs.
Eventually, I don't want to ditch Linux because it's everywhere now and our community at Ubuntu is big and strong; I personally have invested a lot of time and efforts during the past year to learn WHAT Ubuntu is. I love the OS and I love the team.
I can't say the BSD distros and SunOSes have such a powerful community at first glance, although I admit that they're backed up by powerful companies and/or extremely intelligent people.
For the record, I have visited PCBSD website and I ordered the DVD of Solaris Express Developer Edition 1/08 (Sun's free OpenSolaris-based distribution). We'll see how I can fare with that.
Anyway, the discussion goes on and your opinions will be appreciated.
Desktop : iMac 21.5" (2011) Core i5 Sandy Bridge - AMD Radeon HD 6750M - 8Gb RAM - OS X 10.8.3 Mountain Lion
Laptop : EasyNote TS 44HR (2012) - Core i3 Sandy Bridge - Intel HD3000 - 4Gb RAM - elementary OS 0.2 + Windows 7 Home Premium SP1
Moved to BSD Discussions. Because it's about the BSDs.
Ubuntu user #7247 :: Linux user #409907
Your friend says that Mac is true Unix? Sigh.
It runs a userland based on FreeBSD. You'll find many standard FreeBSD commands missing, however. (Of course, as I type, I can't think of any, but we had to do something with a user's Mac the other day, and there was some standard command missing, which annoyed me. )
BSD is certainly more Unixlike than is LInux, but I don't think I'd say Mac is really BSD.
Actually, BSD is not entitled to call itself Linux--there were a bunch of legal battles with AT&T back in the late 80's and/or early 90's about this and the code had to be entirely re-written. Although it is one of the 4 O/S's in the O'Reilly Essential Unix Administration, so is RedHat, which is of course, a LInux.
EDIT---I wrote "...entitled to call itself Linux..." I meant Unix, of course.
p_quarles, that's interesting, I hadn't known that. Thanks for the info.
So your friend is on somewhat shaky ground, I think. I do suspect that a Linux user, skilled with command line, would do a better job at a Solaris or AIX console than would a very skilled, but mostly GUI oriented Mac user. Don't let it get to you. Just tell him you'd get a Mac but you dislike being locked in by hardware vendors.
Last edited by scottro; March 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 PM.
Actually Mac OS X 10.5 did achieve official UNIX status, i.e., the right to bear the UNIX trademark.
That's not to say that it's any more UNIX-like than SCO, Solaris, or even Linux, but it does meet the UNIX specification.
I would really like to try Solaris on my old PC but it requires 750 MB of RAM which I don't have so I'm going to give FreeBSD a shot.
Maybe Solaris suffers from a small community because historically it has been locked on Sun's hardware but things are changing now.
I wouldn't use Solaris on a laptop, not yet anyway. But if you have an nvidia motherboard and graphics card it'll be easy as pie getting your desktop setup, lol (solaris runs better on my AMD x64 system than windows does)
Solaris has only been open for like 2 years or so now? They've come pretty damn far in that time but "update speed" comes with people and it has fewer than FreeBSD and much much fewer than Linux, linux guys are spoiled hehe.
Community edition is the most up-to-date version if you do want to give it a whack. Just note that the only way to update the core OS is to download the newest version and upgrade from that disc...
I would go for a BSD, Solaris as people have stated isn't too laptop friendly yet. Personally I would go for PC-BSD as it has a very good packaging system, I feel that it is better than synaptic, but I don't think that it has all of the software that is available in Ubuntu, but there is still easily enough to do.
"Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning: I can't configure debian" Stoled from Hedge, who got it from the urban dictionary.
I like PC-BSD but the amount of PBI packages is so low, that it's not really worth using.
It has a nice installer, and a really professional look to it.
My only other experience with KDE was Kubuntu 7.10 which I've heard wasn't so great. But PC-BSD's KDE was much better.
If you don't like KDE, start off with FreeBSD and add what you want.