FreeBSD vs Solaris usefulness

Yes, I know: "ANOTHER vs thread", but I have honestly not been able to find an up to date answer to this question. While most vs threads cover usability or features and so on, that's NOT what I am concerned about primarily.

Basically, here's the scenario; I've been using all sorts of Linuxes over the last decade or so, and have been dabbling a bit in FreeBSD for like a year. I am actually getting into system administration as a career, which is where this question comes from.

My basic question is this: Which am I more likely to find useful to know, in terms of a career in UNIX/Linux administration? On the flip side of the coin; if I was in a position to CHOOSE the OS the company I work for uses (though I doubt this will happen at all), which would you say is easier to administer (if there IS such a thing) Solaris or FreeBSD (from a neutral stand point, i.e. for someone with equal knowledge and experience in either).
 
Solaris as an OS is pretty much dead. Oracle killed it. You will still find quite some older Solaris' boxes but I doubt anyone would, willingly, buy new. If you know enough of FreeBSD you will have no problems finding your way on Solaris, if you happen to cross paths with one.
 
Someone knowledgeable I know told me a few years ago that he didn't consider Solaris to be relevant anymore, based on that go with FreeBSD. Oracle seems content to let Solaris go too, just look at the apathy towards the leaked source code.

If you are looking for open source Solaris there is OpenIndiana and OpenSXCE, but they're not going anywhere fast.
 
Thanks for the input guys, I thought as much that this would be true (re: Solaris is dead). I've heard from people that I've had interviews with that most of them are switching to Linux.

What about the flip side of that? How relevant is BSD in the industry? I've googled around and found a bunch of examples of BSD being use by top notch people, but no one I've talked to personally ever mentions it. Does anyone here have some experience regarding the relevance of BSD in the IT industry that they can share?
 
I've found that by knowing FreeBSD I can usually find my way around commercial UNIX systems like AIX and HP-UX quite easily. You may not find a lot of companies using FreeBSD but the experience will get you a long way on other systems.
 
TjPhysicist said:
I thought as much that this would be true (re: Solaris is dead). I've heard from people that I've had interviews with that most of them are switching to Linux.
Not true. Solaris is not dead.

When it comes to switching to Linux topic: that's one sad story. Many companies are switching to Linux (from HPUX, AIX, Solaris) when it comes to saving money. That doesn't mean it's better solution .. it's only cheaper. Not to mention what nightmare is to support those systems (e.g. multipathing, mirroring, LVM, HA).

It's more likely you'll have some sort of Linux-based infrastructure in a smaller company. So I'd say you should focus on Linux first.

When it comes to Unix (HPUX, AIX, Solaris) - big companies are still using it, and no worries, will be using it for some time. There's also a good reason why. The best you can do is give a Solaris try and compare it with other OSes. You can run Solaris in e.g. VMware, so it's very easy to build your own small virtual data center. Make your own opinion on Solaris.
 
SirDice said:
I've found that by knowing FreeBSD I can usually find my way around commercial UNIX systems like AIX and HP-UX quite easily.
More than how much knowing Linux would help anyway?
 
I agree Solaris is pretty much dead after Oracle killed OpenSolaris project. I installed Solaris OS three years ago and it's still running on my home computer as a file server using ZFS. I might switch over to FreeBSD since ZFS has matured very well.

The are two things I liked about Solaris:
  • ZFS
  • Virtual Environment
Linux and FreeBSD are playing catch up with Solaris and will render Solaris worthless in the near future. FreeBSD's ZFS has been forked from OpenSolaris' ZFS since we don't think Oracle will release additional ZFS code to the public so the FreeBSD community will develop its own ZFS version.

Oracle has Linux as well but it's also dead.

Oracle should stick to what they do best, which is Oracle Database. Anything else they touch is pretty much dead.
 
SirDice said:
Yes, I can't find my way around any Linux distribution because they all seem to do things differently.
Yeah, I recently had the misfortune of doing my Red Hat certification along with my Linux+. So many configuration files in all different places. *shudder*.

I haven't used other UNIXes. How similar are they to FreeBSD, given that FreeBSD is very different from Linux (in terms of FHS, configuration files, where things are etc)?
 
TjPhysicist said:
I haven't used other UNIXes how similar are they to FreeBSD. Given that FreeBSD is VERY different from Linux (in terms of FHS, config files, where things are etc).

Things on FreeBSD tend to be similar because we all have the same origins. Lots of stuff on FreeBSD is in places that are more or less traditional. The commercial UNIX systems usually use the same traditions.

Besides that, getting things done on FreeBSD involves learning how it works. That same knowledge can then be applied to any system. On a lot of Linux distributions it usually works with a few mouse-clicks, you can get it running without knowing how it works. It's almost like Windows x(
 
Thanks, I think that cleared up my questions/doubts. Plus I have a fetish for BSD style init, it's just infinitely better, and I think *BSD might be the only ones left to still have it among all the *nixes.
 
@TjPhysicist It's worth mentioning that knowing FreeBSD doesn't give you much help with HP-UX. Systems may have the same roots, but administration of that system is very different. Even basic stuff like setting FS, creating users, doing backups, installing software is absolutely different.

As @SirDice said though, FreeBSD is very organized and keeps things neat and in place (apposed to Linux distros doing the same thing differently). This is one of the strengths of FreeBSD too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SirDice said:
Solaris as an OS is pretty much dead. Oracle killed it. You will still find quite some older Solaris' boxes but I doubt anyone would, willingly, buy new. If you know enough of FreeBSD you will have no problems finding your way on Solaris, if you happen to cross paths with one.

Pretty much that, unless you're an Oracle customer and buying a complete solution from them (i.e., Solaris on Sparc plus Oracle database all under a support contract).

Solaris has some pretty cool technology (zones), but really unless you need it for a particular niche use, FreeBSD is under more active development and has a larger userbase.

And yeah, pretty much any commercial Unix has a lot more in common with FreeBSD than Linux does. Switching between Linux and other Unix will feel a bit wierd. Switching between FreeBSD and other Unix will be somewhat less wierd. I've resurrected an AIX box without having touched one before due to basic familiarity from FreeBSD (I ended up having to fix the fstab file using only cat due to no editor being available :D).

Also, on BSD style init - Slackware still uses it, last I checked.
 
throAU said:
I've resurrected an AIX box without having touched one before due to basic familiarity from FreeBSD (I ended up having to fix the fstab file using only cat due to no editor being available :D).

I think AIX doesn't have fstab ;).

But I agree with what you said. Solaris has some killer features. And I'm personally very happy that FreeBSD is porting some of them to its sources.
 
TjPhysicist said:
Yes, I know: "ANOTHER vs thread", but I have honestly not been able to find an up to date answer to this question. While most vs threads cover usability or features and so on, that's NOT what I am concerned about primarily.
So at first I kind of ignored the whole thread because, as you said yourself, "Yet another one...". But going over it I feel it needs a little more background, even though @SirDice basically said it all.

But there is a very good reason for it too, and it isn't solely an issue of Solaris being owned by Oracle either, though they are the major cause of it all.

The thing is; Oracle likes money. And basically prefer it over everything else to such extends that they'd rather get less frequent but bigger portions instead of smaller portions and optionally more frequent.

Sun Microsystems had several subscription models for their Solaris OS even though the OS itself was usable free of charge. What you basically paid for (apart from supporting an, in my opinion, awesome operating system and likewise company) was access to continuous updates. Now, this may sound weird at first; continue reading.. Solaris updates, just like the OS, were of course free too. But if you relied on the free part you'd also rely on a different distribution model, which basically pushed out an update package every once in a while. Usually every one or two months.

Note that this did not include security updates. Unlike Microsoft Sun has always realized their responsibility and as such have always provided security updates for free. Even dating back to Solaris 6 and 7 which you had to pay for (note: with "free" I'm not insinuating "easy to download" or "obtainable in an (end)user friendly manner").

Still, the free update model basically meant that you had to invest quite a bit of time to keep your system up to date. Compare it to the Ports system; if you update every week you'll have a lot less issues than if you update every month. The less frequent the update, the more ports which might require your attention and in general more work.

The commercial update on the other hand allowed access to continuous updates, but still heavily tested updates of course.

And the best part about their subscription model is that both big players as well as smaller ones (like myself) could all benefit.

Back in the days I used 4 Solaris servers and had an update subscription for 3 of them. Even though I could probably have chosen to keep 1 up to date and push the updates further down myself. I didn't bother because this was easier (took less time), I had the feeling I was supporting an awesome operating system and most of all: I could afford it.

So what was one of the first things Oracle did after the assimilation, corporate takeover? (I'll keep it professional ;)).

Simple; raising the prices for the Solaris subscriptions. Two to threefold.

Where I paid approximately E 180,- / per server per year I was now looking at something starting to tick around E 700,-. Worse yet: the provided services were also heavily cut short. Extra's like SunSolve access were all removed (SunSolve was a specific website which contained in-depth and technical information of just about every piece of hardware Sun had produced).

That was pretty much the beginning of the end for Solaris.

Sure; we still have OpenSolaris (project Indiana if I recall correctly).

First: don't get me wrong here, I heavily respect the project. I think it's commendable that some people feel so strongly about their preferred OS that they decide to take matters into their own hands.

But still... Personally I never really liked OpenSolaris myself.

But the thing is: it seems that many people forget that Sun has spend a lot of company resources working on OpenSolaris. I don't think it'll be that easy to pick that up, something which in my opinion has proven itself in the last years when looking at the progress (or somewhat lack of) which has been made.

Not to mention the issue that companies have been bailing out of Solaris (and can you blame them?). And that is another important aspect: if you invested in moving away from Solaris then you'll need a lot more than merely looking at a situation where a sort of status quo of the previous situation is maintained before you'll even consider to move back again. I think it's safe to say that in general all the companies which moved on are gone for good.

So yeah, Solaris really is pretty much dead where commercial usage is concerned.

And from a company perspective I would be very reluctant to pick it up again myself, even though Solaris is my all time favourite Unix environment. Simply because, once again with all due respect, it has become a liability.

FreeBSD has been around almost as long as Unix itself existed (not entirely true, but you get the idea) and same can be said for Solaris as it was. Yet the OpenSolaris group basically still has to prove themselves. For all I know (from a commercial point of view) they could be gone next month. That makes it a liability, especially in comparison to Sun being out of the picture and the love/hate relationship with Oracle.

TjPhysicist said:
My basic question is this: Which am I more likely to find useful to know, in terms of a career in UNIX/Linux administration?
I think I answered the main question up there.

You'll still find Solaris around, but usually in enterprise environments where companies simply can't afford to "just" move on. Even so, I think it's very likely that many of them may have started a transition to move away already. So even if you do come across Solaris I wouldn't be surprised if the first thing you heard was that it was getting ready to be put into retirement.

Even though the question has already been answered I hope this still can shed some different light on the matter.

Edit: Null edit & fixed broken quote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
matoatlantis said:
Not true. Solaris is not dead.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that ;)

matoatlantis said:
When it comes to Unix (HPUX, AIX, Solaris) - big companies are still using it, and no worries, will be using it for some time. There's also a good reason why.
Sure, but money concerns have always been an important factor, even for Enterprise like environments.

And although Oracle didn't simply started raising prices threefold for these kind of environments (not every time that is) they did start changing the terms and setting up new SLA's, usually also for different prices.

You should not underestimate the prices Oracle likes to charge for anything which falls outside their field of direct expertise. And even though most companies will heavily weigh in the risk factor (inevitable with migrations) and based on that decide to leave things, I can't help wonder if most haven't already decided to move on.
 
Little off topic, but dinosaurs so big and powerful, especially when compared to mammals, so talking about their extinction is pure nonsense, isn't?

Business supports and business kills, as business see no value other than money. There was a time when professionals where generally even more skeptical about linux.
 
ShelLuser said:
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that ;)
So it seems ;-)

ShelLuser said:
Sure, but money concerns have always been an important factor, even for Enterprise like environments.

Very much true. And as you mentioned in your post above, support is very important. Especially for big enterprises. If I hit a bug which stops production (== losing a lot of money in a short time) I need a quick and reliable support and fix.

I agree with you though, Oracle and SUN is like yin and yang.
 
gpatrick said:
The only reason Linux has its place in the corporate world is some stooge higher up in the company sees some other stooge at another company doing it, and that moron says it is saving them huge amounts of money.
Hear, hear!

You spoke my mind.

When I read your post it was like talking to my colleague - we hit the same bugs (RedHat, SuSE). Cherry on top was when multipathing was corrupting filesystems. Not to mention procedure to expand RAID1 md device with multipathing. That's like a bad joke ..
 
matoatlantis said:
Hear, hear!

You spoke my mind.

When I read your post it was like talking to my colleague - we hit the same bugs (RedHat, SuSE). Cherry on top was when multipathing was corrupting filesystems. Not to mention procedure to expand raid1 md device with multipathing. That's like a bad joke ..

It really frustrates me that the mess that is Linux (ducks) is more popular in business computing than the solid, time tested systems. When I had Linux it was always flaking out in weird ways. Not to say that it never ever happens on FreeBSD, but it's much much rarer.
 
CurlyTheStooge said:
There's bit too much hatred for Linux in here. Just saying.

Regards.

Hatred? I don't think so. Or at least hope so. Dislike, with experience to back it up? More likely. The thing is that it is not so easy to hate "Linux" because you could as well try to nail fog to the wall. Linux, as the kernel, is not really a topic here I think. What the seperate distributions make of it? That is more of a target for bad vibrations. And that is what I see referenced here as points of dislike. What these distributions ship, and that they want money for nothing (and chicks for free?) when it comes to support. THAT is the problem, and I think we have a right to point that out. Don't you think?
 
Back
Top