Talk:Oracle Solaris

message: 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)
replies: text: 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====
# Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. - Cyrus XIII 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move #2 

message: :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====
# Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. - Cyrus XIII 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. - Cyrus XIII 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: :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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Numbering 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: And here I thought my HP printer wouldn't work if I installed Solaris. ~Jonathan (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introductory paragraph contradicts the artlce itself 

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

text: "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)
thread_title:  Poor Article 

message: We need a screenshot in order to give more detail to the reader. --frogger3140 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a variety of screen shots, can this concern be purged? DavidHalko (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  screenshot 

message: 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)
replies: text: This has been corrected DavidHalko (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:DECwindows-openvms-v7.3-1.png

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyrighted code 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:Sol10-software-grps.gif]] may be deleted 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  First para of lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Solaris 10 Update 9 Available 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Differentiate OpenSolaris and Solaris 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Origin of zones 

message: 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)
thread_title:  OTN reference in first Para 

message: The link it points to is for downloads of Solaris 10 9/10.--70.231.239.39 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solaris 10 8/11 isn't out 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Last Update for Solaris 9 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Supported architectures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Solaris (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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."
# If these efforts underway are for unofficial, open source derivative projects that needs to be explicitly stated in this sentence.
# If these efforts underway are for IBM System z then the tense is wrong.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  with efforts underway to port to additional platforms 

message: 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 wordshttps://meshedinsights.com/2017/09/03/oracle-finally-killed-sun/ 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments about ongoing development 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

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