Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday June 19 2017, @08:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the disappointing dept.

OpenIndiana is a free and open source Unix operating system derived from OpenSolaris and based on illumos.

Curmudgeonly software reviewer Dedoimedo AKA Igor Ljubuncic reports:

Conclusion

I find the test today somewhat sad. Sure, I did accomplish what I needed, but it gave me no joy, and no hope that this operating system can even even remotely compare against any Linux. Even CentOS is lightyears ahead. In the server environment, it may have its uses, but it completely misses the mark on the desktop.

Package management, applications, it all just feels raw, alien, unfriendly. What do you do if there are problems with drivers, or hardware? Where do you find the latest apps, and this isn't just an act of mercy by a volunteer? What about compatibility on actual hardware. The fact I was not willing to commit my test laptop also tells something.

You can master and tame OpenIndiana, to a level. But it is mostly a futile exercise in obstinacy. All of the stuff we've done above are more or less a given in Linux, and have been so since about 2007. It's like driving an old car and trying to match its abilities to new, modern technology. Unless you're into antiques, it's not really worth it.

The worst part, I guess, isn't the specifics. That can be sorted. It's the absolute lack of progress since 2011, in the desktop space. Underneath it may be wonders, but if you cannot use the system, then it's worthless. Lots of the stuff from the previous version have been removed [or] made less accessible, but we get nothing new in return. So it is nerdier and harder than before, and that's a grim sign of a future that has no place on the desktop. This seems to be true with other operating systems in this family, too. Just not worth the effort. Stick with Linux. Grade wise, 4/10.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday June 19 2017, @11:58PM (1 child)

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday June 19 2017, @11:58PM (#528218) Journal

    People seems to completely have lost sight of computer resources these days. That a CPU clock at 33 MHz, DRAM 32 MB, harddisc 100 MB, x86 arch with VGA is sufficient to boot and run X11 window seems unfathomable for people these days. I'll guess even Netscape v1 would run on top of that, perhaps even Netscape v2 (the first decent one). To insult even more a computer platform with a CPU clock at 7 MHz, DRAM 512 kB, storage 880 kB, m68k arch with bitmap and acceleration handled a window based GUI.

    With this knowledge it become much easier to judge how much computer resources you need for say a embedded system with a graphical user interface. Which means that if the user interface only need to be some kind of really dumb graphical terminal you know with quite a certainty you can get it done with say a ARM at 8 MHz, SRAM 512 kB, Flash 512 kB, storage with flash 1 GB and DMA trick to drive the display. Which means it can be squeezed down to ONE chip which saves circuit board routing, EMI and complexity by a magnitude. The all graphics can be sent as vector commands down some serial line like Ethernet etc.

    So when modern computer have "minimum" specifications of a CPU at 4 GHZ with 4 cores, DRAM 4 GB, storage 200 GB or more using 64-bit x86 and closed to hell graphics. You KNOW something is up big time.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 21 2017, @05:15PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday June 21 2017, @05:15PM (#529121) Journal

    I forgot to mention GEOS, that does window interfacing using a 8-bit CPU at 1 MHz, bitmap graphics, 64 kB of RAM and 160 kB of storage. How sucky does that indicate the Microsoft code is..