Talk:Oracle Solaris

Requested move #2

Resolved

 – Page moved. CWC 02:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Solaris Operating System → Solaris (operating system) — Consistency, ease of piping links; usually referred to as simply "Solaris", even by Sun. intgr 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. - Cyrus XIII 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Sun seems to alternatively refer to it as Solaris Operating System and simply Solaris on its website. Solaris, as noted right above me, is a more common form of the name, and I think it would be simpler to just call the article "Solaris (operating system)". – Mipadi 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. AFAICT from poking around sun.com, Sun don't use the "Solaris" name for anything but the OS, so the common name is unambiguous and shorter. (To expand something the nom wrote, [[Solaris (operating system)|]] will be equivalent to [[Solaris (operating system)|Solaris]] — neat, hey?) CWC 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support and moved per WP:SNOW. —Ruud 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• For earlier discussion about what to name this article, see above under "#Article title - O/Environment or O/System?", "#Requested move" and "#Naming". CWC 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbering

Most recent releases of Solaris, such as 8, 9 or 10, are referred to as SunOS 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 in the operating system using the uname command not 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodendahl (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 September 2007

This turns out not to be the case:

% uname -sr
SunOS 5.10
%

--NapoliRoma 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that as well - on Solaris 7, 8 and 10 boxes here they all report 5.7, 5.8 and 5.10 as their version -66.181.254.202 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

file systems in solaris

what filesystems are supported by solaris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.246.100 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Solaris uses an extended version of the Unix File System for disk storage. (Sun added journaling to UFS in Solaris 7, so it's not the standard UFS that came with SVR4.) Of course, it also supports FAT16, FAT32 and ISO 9660, for portable media rather than main storage. It's not like Linux, where you have several well-supported disk file systems to choose from.

Solaris also supports a variety of non-disk file systems, including tmpfs and procfs.

There are about a dozen virtual filesystems that are normally used in Solaris to provide various facilities. Neither tmpfs nor procfs are the names of any of them (maybe you were thinking of Linux). Triskelios (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true, at least as of Solaris10/SunOS 5.10 and beyond. Cf. tmpfs(7fs) and mount_tmpfs(1m). As for 'procfs', this is simply named 'proc', and is restricted to plain process information (unlike in Linux) 217.232.148.200 (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

tmpfs dates back to at least late 1987, in SunOS 4. /proc dates back to 1984, in Version 8 Unix, and was ported to System V Release 4, from which SunOS 5 was derived. Not all exotic file systems originated in Linux. Guy Harris (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Third-party open source projects have added ext2fs support to OpenSolaris (and maybe Solaris itself); I hope to try that out in a month or two. Cheers, CWC 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Read-only NTFS support is also provided through a separate project.

...and ZFS.--NapoliRoma 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Yes, of course. How embarrassing. CWC 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Other filesystems include NFS (of course), CIFS (SMB), Veritas' VxFS, OpenAFS. UDF is also supported for media. Read-only NTFS is available in addition to ext2fs. Nevada is moving towards using ZFS for root filesystems by default (as other distributions already do), which will be backported to S10. Triskelios (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget the Lustre cluster filesystem, which was bought by Sun in 2007. Raysonho (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Pemutar musik pelayr Ritno bae (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Pemutar musik pelayr Ritno bae (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Question on Single UNIX Specification

If Solaris is cirtified against Single UNIX Specification does that mean OpenSolaris is as well??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.138.57 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. (I'd say it depends on what you mean by "OpenSolaris", but the answer is no for any meaning I can think of.)

An OS in general isn't certified; specific releases are. So, Solaris 10, a release, is certified against the SUS. There is no release called "OpenSolaris" anything that has been through the certification process.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right, "OpenSolaris" is, as far as I'm aware, the name for the open code base for which the Solaris OS releases are created, not a distinct operating system in and of itself. mike4ty4 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OpenSolaris is now the name of what was formerly known as "Project Indiana". OpenSolaris 2008.05 was released on May 5, 2008. See the DistroWatch announcement for more information. BlueJayofEvil (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph contradicts the artlce itself

In the intro paragraph, "As of this writing, Hewlett-Packard is unable to support the platform in commercial settings." is stated, however, later in the article Solaris_(operating_system)#Supported_architectures specifically mentions HP as a supported vendor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.254.202 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that HP does not support Solaris; It is also true that Sun supports Solaris on HP systems. Not contradictory, but maybe can be made less confusing. I think that part of the lead should be reworked; "licensed" is probably not the right term and "as of this writing" forces you to study the edit history to find out when "this writing" was.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought my HP printer wouldn't work if I installed Solaris. ~Jonathan (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems extremely off topic for an opening paragraph. HP's website says: http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/492635-0-0-0-121.html, a page titled "HP ProLiant Server Support. Current HP ProLiant servers that are Sun Test Suite Certified, HP supported, and/or planned for support." I think this statement adds no value and should be removed. Dbprice (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Poor Article

This is not encyclopedic. This is written like a tech spec sheet crossed with a news release for industry journalists. There's not much about the pros and cons of the system, snapshots of the system or anything at a more summarized encyclopedia kind of level. This gives you lots of tech info, but actually very little info on the system itself. It's FAR too high level and detailed for an encyclopedia. Wood for the trees people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.20.209 (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh "high level and detailed"? Maybe you mean "low level and detailed"? HughesJohn (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic... pros and cons"? Solaris comprises a family of operating systems, much like Legumes comprise a family of edible food. One will not see a list of pros and cons when they look up Legumes in wikipedia. "There's not much about... snapshots of the system"? A snapshot has been included since 2006 and product logo in 2008 - I personally addressed this concern with adding additional images. "...lots of tech info, but actually very little info on the system itself" - Technical information is information on the system itself. I also addressed this concern with adding a new section on installation & usage options. I think this "Poor Article" comment is now irrelevant, can it be purged? DavidHalko (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

screenshot

We need a screenshot in order to give more detail to the reader. --frogger3140 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a variety of screen shots, can this concern be purged? DavidHalko (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The CDE screenshot is from OpenVMS, though, so we could do with a machine actually running Solaris before purging this concern. Gareth.randall (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic?

OK, so there are probably many ways this article could be improved, but compared to some other articles on similar subjects, IMHO, this one is reasonably good and fairly NPOV. Anybody have any specific criticisms? Letdorf (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC).

I mostly agree with Letdorf. Similarly, I feel the article contains a lot of good information, especially for the technically minded or those looking to weigh Solaris as a platform option. It mentions a lot of specific technologies that Solaris offers, but provides a good overview of the operating system as a whole.

I disagree with most of the comment from 81.157.20.209's "Poor article" section above. While the article doesn't make a comparison between Solaris and other OSes, that's not its purpose, but rather to explain Solaris. Pros and cons might be a reasonable addition, but pure comparisons are for the comparison page (Comparison of operating systems). As for being "HIGH level and detailed", it provides a historically- and technically-relevant overview of Solaris (save some instances that I could see being up for debate). The only thing I agree with is the addition of a screenshot.

--Placatedmayhem (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One further point in this matter is that listing "pros" and "cons" is quite non-trivial. Solaris is a general-purpose Unix operating system, and in my opinion listing "pros" and "cons" is fundamentally opinion-based. Often such lists are influenced by the writer's experience on different operating systems. I think such lists don't belong to an encyclopedia, but rather to discussion sites.

89.27.47.68 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article contains useful information - in particular, the reason I visited the page this morning was to find out when particular versions had been released. Posting a "pro/con" list would be difficult to do objectively and, as the previous poster noted, be appropriate for a discussion group.

--Jim Carson —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

I also disagree with most of the comment from 81.157.20.209's "Poor article" section above. The parts I did agree with, I tried to enhance by adding screen shots, adding installation options, and additional content surrounding the desktop environment. I think this comment from 81.157.20.209's "Poor article" section above no longer applies. Can this concern be purged? DavidHalko (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:DECwindows-openvms-v7.3-1.png

The image File:DECwindows-openvms-v7.3-1.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been corrected DavidHalko (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted code

To what degree does Solaris still have old AT&T code in it, to which Novell now owns the copyright? If it doesn't have any, at what point did it purge? How long did it need to have a license, or did it get a perpetual license of some kind? -- Beland (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

According to SCO v. Novell, it looks like Sun still had a Unix license when it released OpenSolaris. -- Beland (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Unix license" means in your context. Sun bought out its rights to the SVR4 source base from Novell back in the '90s, before Novell entered into its agreement with oldSCO. This is separate from "Unix" branding, which Novell handed over to what is now The Open Group. The question that I don't think there is a documented answer to is whether there are any existing rights issues associated with Sun open sourcing the Solaris source base via the OpenSolaris community.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sol10-software-grps.gif may be deleted

I have tagged File:Sol10-software-grps.gif, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Multics family

Moved to Talk:Mac OS X

 – Subsection is Talk:Mac OS X#Multics Family --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in the one place. It started in Talk:Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First para of lead

There seems to be some edit-warring going on here recently. If anyone considers the sentence

Solaris is a Unix operating system originally developed by Sun Microsystems, which superseded their earlier SunOS in 1992.

to be incorrect, confusing or misleading, please discuss your objections here. Thank you. Letdorf (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC).

Solaris 10 Update 9 Available

I'm not sure what the exact release date was, but Solaris 10 Update 9 (Oracle Solaris 10 9/10) is available for download from Oracle. SDNick484 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Differentiate OpenSolaris and Solaris

This article mix information from OpenSolaris and Solaris. That was not a serious thing, but with the last announcements from Oracle it's really important to separate both, of course, except when referring historical events. For example, the Licence section need to be restructured, if not, wiped-out. HavokCR (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC -6)

Note that, according to the leaked memo, Solaris source code will continue to be licensed under the CDDL, it's just the OpenSolaris development model has been dropped in favour of in-house development and binary releases, followed by source releases. Letdorf (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Origin of zones

The page currently says "Solaris 10 11/06 ("U3") added ... Logical Domains.". However, I'm running a 6/06 ("U2") system with two non-global zones. So the page must be in error. Bhami (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Logical Domains (aka Oracle VM for SPARC) is hypervisor-based virtualization for SPARC T-Series processors. Zones (aka Containers) is OS-based virtualization that works on any system running Solaris 10 or later. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial Release of Solaris 10 not listed

Solaris 10's first release was March 2005. This can be verified by googling "solaris 10 release 3/05". I've posted this here (rather than editing the page), as I do not know if this has been brought up before (it does not appear to have been mentioned previously). Xeleema (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Solaris 10's initial release date was January 31st, 2005, as the article says. This is unfortunately a little harder to verify than it used to be, now that most of sun.com is gone.

It's called "Solaris 10 3/05" because the media kits for that release started shipping in early March, and back then that was the milestone for the "official" release date / name. But the actual OS was released, and support started, at the end of January.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

CNET article confirming this: http://news.cnet.com/Sun-releases-Solaris-10-for-free/2100-1016_3-5559021.html --NapoliRoma (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OTN reference in first Para

OTN is an existing Oracle facility (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/index.html), a portal onto lots of Oracle products, so saying "Oracle will also begin a technology partner program, called Oracle Technology Network" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.25.10 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Solaris 10 8/11 isn't out

The link it points to is for downloads of Solaris 10 9/10.--70.231.239.39 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest a fix

I am sorry but I think "Only release to support PowerPC platform" changed to "Support PowerPC platform for once" or "This release also supports PowerPC platform for once" might be better. The reason is that first, "Only release to support PowerPC" might mislead some readers to think Solaris 2.5.1 only support PowerPC architecture, or exclusive PowerPC edition. But if fact of all, people ever used it on SPARC and x86 servers too. Second, one might have no ideas about the future, whether it would support PowerPC again. Sorry for my comprehension, so I give this suggestion. Janagewen (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to "The only release that supported PowerPC", because, in fact, we don't have any idea about the future, but we do have an idea about the present, namely that, currently, it is the only release that supported PPC. If some future release supports PPC, we can change it, but, for now, a correct and complete statement is that it is, in fact, the only release to support PPC. Guy Harris (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

SORRY! OVER AND OUT! Janagewen (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This "future" did already happen in 2006 with support from Sun based on OpenSolaris and made on the Genesi hardware (ODW board). This is why this port nearly finished because Sun did compile the closed source parts. a later OpenSolaris port for System/z was only able to start a simple "init" replacement because even libc could not compiled completely without Sun's help Schily (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not confuse readers between Solaris and Open Solaris! I think the expression used in Wikipedia.org German is much proper, so I change it.Janagewen (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I eventually changed it to "The only Solaris Release that supports PowerPC". Here, I capitalized the first letter of word "Release" to emphasizing and it without grammar mistakes in English. Then it would give readers a clear and correct expression! When expressed in "Only release to support PowerPC platform", "release" here is definitively a verb rather than a noun, misleading readers too a lot. So please don't make meaningless changes about this ALREADY expression. Janagewen (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said it was a grammar mistake. It is, however, a capitalization mistake. We do not emphasize words in English by capitalizing the first letter. If you want to emphasize a word, italicize it. And in "only release to support PowerPC platform", "release" is most definitely not a verb rather than a noun, just as in, for example, "only actor to receive two Academy Awards at the same ceremony", "actor" is not a verb. Guy Harris (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that he confused two things. One thing is the problem with capitalizing and the other is Solaris vs. OpenSolaris. With the latter, it may help to know that between June 14 2005 and August 18 2010 the Solaris source code used by Sun was of course the same as the OpenSolaris code. The main reason for confusions in this area is that the OpenSolaris community decided that there should never be a distro called "OpenSolaris" because OpenSolaris is the name of the codebase that has the equivalent scope as the main FreeBSD codebase. But Sun's management ignored this in 2008 and decided to promote their distro that originally was called "Indiana" under the name "OpenSolaris". Schily (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If it said "Only released to support PowerPC platform", with "ed" at the end to indicate the past participle, it would have been a verb; the more complete version of that sentence would be "Solaris 2.5.1 was only released to support the PowerPC platform", with "released" modifying "Solaris 2.5.1". ("Only release to support PowerPC platform" is a sentence fragment, with the subject being omitted as it's implied by the row in the table being about Solaris 2.5.1.)

However, "release", as a verb, would be in the present tense, and would have been grammatically incorrect in "Only release to support PowerPC platform", so in the grammatically-correct interpretation of that sentence, "release" is a noun, as in the more complete forms of that sentence, "Solaris 2.5.1 was the only release to support the PowerPC platform" or "Solaris 2.5.1 was the only release that supported the PowerPC platform". ("Only release to support PowerPC platform" is also a sentence fragment, as it omits the subject.) Guy Harris (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, YOU ARE COMPLETELY ALRIGHT! IS THAT OK? WIKI IS YOURS! I AM SORRY! Janagewen (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Guy Harris, I think you'd better leave chances for other smarter guys, rather than you make nonstop meaningless changes. I wish some other eligible guys, educationed native-English speakers, would give out one excellent expression. Best regards, Janagewen (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't shout... BTW: I am convinced that the Guy Harris you are talking to is this person: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/guy-harris/8/6b7/962

So he is a former employee from Sun and Auspex (the first NAS company). Schily (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow this is Wikipedia.org, any title or text should not be managed by any company or corporation, and anyone should get the equivalent treatment here too. Schily, anyone's personal information should not be talked here to protect potential privacy. Janagewen (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you are not interested in a fact based discussion. "Guy Harris" is a real name and no pseudonym that could be disclosed and he does not work for Sun anymore since more than 25 years. BTW: An encyclopedia lives from well informed people instead of people who report things from hearsay. Schily (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't care who is who, but I just half-fixed one possibly misleading expression for the word "Solaris" in en.Wikipedia.org. I just wish that other readers could have a clear and definitive knowledge about a meaning fact on Computer Science rather than something else. "Ubuntu" isn't it? HE IS GREAT! Yeah, I do apologize, but everyone is also great! Janagewen (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ubuntu is a village in Africa; our institute brought them internet via a long range WiFi radio link. Regarding other people, I judge based on their doings. The articles about Solaris and OpenSolaris are partially wrong and confusing, but it it hard to make them better or correct as long as there is e.g. the GNUliban that tries to harm everything that is CDDL related. Sun was also responsible for a lot of confusion because they ignored the rules and called the OpenSolaris based distro "Indiana" OpenSolaris. Everbody who is enhancing the articles is course welcome. Schily (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Schily, in my last talk, I referred "Ubuntu" as "Ubuntu philosophy". I am sorry for that, I should have made it clear last time. The expression like "Only release to support PowerPC platform" is ok, but might have potential ambiguities. And your modification is excellent but might potentially confuse readers about Solaris and OpenSolaris. I think you might know the relationship between Solaris and OpenSolaris is just like it between StarOffice and OpenOffice.org. OpenSolaris is a community-driven project with initial purpose mimicking the development of RHEL. OpenSolaris is Solaris, but a variant of it exactly. When referring Solaris, people tend to point to the official Solaris release. That's the reason I modified your modification, a sentence translation from German in de.wikipedia.org, keeping its original style on the main artical and leaving the first letter of "Release" capitalized. I have to say, in my view, "Einziges Solaris-Release mit Unterstützung für die PowerPC-Architektur", this noun phrase is excellent and clear, "Only Solaris-Release with Support for the PowerPC-Architecutre" with few or without ambiguities. But now at this moment I agree with Guy Harris's last modification, "The only Solaris release that supports PowerPC". Schily, I have few knowledge about "Indiana", so I just give this explanation about my talk here. Janagewen (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Last Update for Solaris 9

The last update for Solaris 9 might be Solaris 9 U8. I remember to see it somewhere years ago, but could not find the proof to correct it in the main article. So I just leave it in this talk rather than changing it. I might be wrong. Janagewen (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The last publicly downloadable Solaris 9 (not available on oracle website) released for IA-32(x86 but not x86-64 or x64) as Solaris 9 Update 8, but for SPARC/UltraSPARC as Solaris 9 HW905 which means the SPARC counterpart is a bit more update comparing to the IA-32's. There is no evidence to prove that Solaris 9 HW 905 is the Solaris 9 Update 9, so I make this slightly change. If I am wrong, I do apologize, but before reverting my change please offer enough proof. Janagewen (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Supported architectures

It might be noted that Solaris 2.6 was the first release capable of being booted into 64-bit mode, though the default at the time was still 32-bit (as the article correctly states, 64-bit mode as default was introduced in Solaris 7). The implication of the optional 64-bit boot in Solaris 2.6 was that 64-bit applications could be run on it as well.217.232.148.200 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely an unverified claim. 64 Bit support was added starting in September 1996 in the Solaris 7 development period. Given the fact that Sun started to sell 64 bit hardware in 1994, people have been very interested in running a 64 bit OS on this hardware but Solaris 7 was the first OS to support the 64 bit mode. Schily (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Solaris (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150925110058/http://jaris.jp/index2.html to http://jaris.jp/index2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that link was too recent - it went to a page that didn't look as if it were promoting an OS, it looked like a page of ads - so I went with an older archived page. Guy Harris (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

with efforts underway to port to additional platforms

re: alternative architectures mentioned in the Lede "Solaris supports SPARC-based and x86-based workstations and servers from Oracle and other vendors, with efforts underway to port to additional platforms."

1. If these efforts underway are for unofficial, open source derivative projects that needs to be explicitly stated in this sentence.
2. If these efforts underway are for IBM System z then the tense is wrong.
3. If these porting efforts underway are genuine Oracle endeavours despite them discontinuing the open source initiative and discontinuing employment of the official Solaris commercial developers, we need a source reference to demonstrate this claim is current and active.

Otherwise, Oracle is not actively porting Oracle Solaris to alternative architectures. 58.164.0.17 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That claim dates back at least as far as this 2007 pre-Oracle, post-open-sourcing-of-Solaris version, so it probably refers to ports during the Open Solaris era, and is now out-of-date for Oracle Solaris, and now would refer only to ports of the open-source forks. Guy Harris (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments about ongoing development

I see an anonymous editor has posted about the Sun staff layoffs, using a somewhat unreliable journalist as a source for reported comments by Simon Phipps. If you look at his own words they are more nuanced and consequently less open to the "untrue" accusation. It's not instantly obvious to me how to represent that without greatly expanding the text, but what's there now is almost certainly incorrect. ClareTheSharer (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Good call. Solaris 11.4 beta is now available, so it certainly looks like someone's still working on it! 58.168.36.55 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gnomelogo.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot

Screenshot probably needs an update to show the latest version. Chifonr (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)