[geeks] operating systems to replace Solaris

[Shannon]

On Apr 11, 2011, at 13:46 , mail at catsnest.co.uk wrote:

> I am probably approaching this from a narrow view point(1) (and also
> contributing nothing to the original thread) but this is my problem
> with Linux...
> Why do we need to do kernel updates for a service that is in place and
> has had no major changes?
> Don't get me wrong I believe in appropriate security patching (if
> those vulnerabilities affect the service in question).

Solaris is updated about as often as Linux and BSD.

Most people just choose not to update.

Solaris definitely needs patching quite often as you can see from the patch
logs.

In general BSD and Linux people are much more active in staying current than
your typical Solaris user, and that is about the only real difference.

You don't have to patch, but there is rarely a reason not to.

> If the service has been designed correctly with security in mind in
> the first place,

You can just stop there, since every major OS, Solaris included, gets a lot of
security and reliability patches.

:)

> This is why i have always loved Solaris as even though it can take
> more effort to set up once its going there is very little to go wrong.

I agree... but then BSD is like that too.


--
"Where some they sell their dreams for small desires."