Verily I say unto thee, that spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx spake thusly:
> Larry Qualig <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>> Because [H]omer has clearly NEVER used Solaris before yet he bashes it
The premise of the OP is that people criticize Linux without *ever*
having used it ... at all. I *had* clearly used Solaris before I
reviewed it, otherwise I wouldn't have done the review ... that's what a
*review* is Larry. Duh!
Am I an experienced Solaris user? No. But the vast majority of my
criticisms had *nothing* to do with my level of experience:
1) ... Slow boot time.
2) ... Outdated boot interface.
3) ... Lack of Gnome DE in the LiveCD.
4) ... Dull default theme choices and ugly UI.
5) ... The Anti-GPL license (CDDL).
6) ... Lack of WiFi support.
7) ... Lack of Bluetooth support.
Please explain, oh wise one, what relevance my experience has to these
criticisms?
The only three things that my inexperience influenced were:
1) ... Configuration file locations and format (for networking).
2) ... Binary flag differences.
3) ... UI differences.
And I even stated a caveat in my summary:
"I'm sure if installed this OS and spent enough time familiarising
myself with it, installing drivers, and configuring it properly, that it
would work fine."
This line was mostly in reference to the fact that I hate the CDDL:
"But the question is, why bother?"
None of the main issues that I brought up were likely to be addressed by
me simply extending the review any further, particularly the licensing
issue, so the fact that I only spent a short time reviewing it is
irrelevant. I gave it the same review time as I gave Ubuntu 7.04 a few
days earlier, and I'm not normally an Ubuntu user either.
So what exactly is your point, Larry? Because the OP is raising the
issue of people who criticise Linux without *ever* having used it,
whereas I *did* use Solaris. Is your point that I didn't try it for long
enough? How long should I have sat there looking at it Larry? An hour
... two hours? How long will it take for them to re-release OpenSolaris
under the GPL, because that's how long it will take for me to at least
*start* liking it.
Was there something wrong with my review methodology Larry? Was it
somehow different from the typical Win-dolt who claims "(all) Linux Sux"
because they tried one version of one distro and they experience one
error? Unlike most typical Win-dummies, I *am* prepared to spend time
configuring a system to work ... all other factors being equal, but in
the case of OpenSolaris it is a non-starter due to it's license. The
subsequent issues were little more than confirmation, that's all.
The "mini-review" I did was *only* to satisfy my curiosity ... I even
stated the fact, right along with my reservation that the software was
released under a license I don't like:
"I thought I'd see how our GPL-hating friends over at Sun were
progressing with their "operating system of choice", so I downloaded
Belenix to check it out."
I'll state again for the record, that OpenSolaris is a dull,
underdeveloped, badly licensed, poor substitute for any given typical
modern Linux distro, and any number a hours spent staring at it isn't
going to change that fact ... but at least I *did* try it.
And how is this relevant to people who *don't* try an OS *at all* before
criticising it?
> And you know this HOW exactly?
> Even I've used solaris, what of it?
As stated in the review, my experience is in UNIX (SYSV) and Linux. Not
Solaris. There are similarities, and the differences can be overcome
with patience and learning, but most of the non-technical issues with
OpenSolaris can't, at the very least until they change the license (and
I can't see that happening ... ever).
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| I found [Vista] to be a dangerously unstable operating system,
| which has caused me to lose data ... unfortunately this product
| is unfit for any user. - [H]ardOCP, <http://tinyurl.com/3bpfs2>
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2312.fc5
02:18:51 up 11 days, 23:51, 4 users, load average: 0.02, 0.16, 0.25
|
|
