We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Get our free report covering Microsoft, Red Hat, openSUSE, and other competitors of Windows 10. Updated: January 2022.
563,327 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Windows 10 alternatives and competitors

CEO at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5
Powerful with high availability and very stable
Pros and Cons
  • "Oracle Solaris is great due to the fact that it actually is meant for high-end servers."
  • "Currently, there are two variants, there's SPARC and there's x86. I would have wanted a scenario where they're all just one product."

What is our primary use case?

Clients mainly use the solution as a database operating system in many environments. Most who are using it are financial institutions, telecoms, or companies in the energy sector. 

What is most valuable?

Of late the most valuable feature is virtualization. They have attained virtualization and it's quite simple to create the Oracle Solaris zones.

The solution is quite powerful.

Oracle Solaris is great due to the fact that it actually is meant for high-end servers. 

The high availability is great. You can clone and you can do quite a number of things with them. There's also the ZFS File system which is very good. Is one of the best file systems that there is.

What needs improvement?

Most of the product is still command-line, despite the fact that they've got a graphical user interface in some areas. For some reason, core administration is still done via command-line.

The manufacturer can put most of those command-line environments into classical use like other operating systems. With Solaris the administration part is through command-line which may be difficult for some people who may not be used to that way of working.

Currently, there are two variants, there's SPARC and there's x86. I would have wanted a scenario where they're all just one product.

I would have loved if the clustering data was a bit simpler. Currently, the clustering data is a product on its own. It would be great if there was higher availability data with that.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been an Oracle Solaris consultant for over 20 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This is the most stable operating system compared to other operating systems that I know. If you look at it, it's rarely attacked by viruses and it rarely fails due to its reliable hardware. SPARC is normally very stable.

It rarely fails. Even if it fails, it gives you a lot of warnings in the logs. The log warnings are very clear. If you follow along you really get to the crux of the matter. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

When it comes to scalability, it's even more scalable than other competitors given the fact that it's a high-end operating system.

It ranges from one single processor to over a hundred cores. It's a very scalable operating system. I'd say it's more scalable than any Linux and Windows environment - in vertical scaling, that is. The SPARC servers are extremely powerful. You can put a very huge database on it or even a very big application.

How are customer service and technical support?

Oracle support is good. The only this is that it is expensive. At the end of the day, if you are on Oracle support you are sorted out quickly. They are very responsive and knowledgable. If you are not on Oracle support you have to support it yourself and figure out what the issues are without their assistance.

With Oracle, everything is together and it comes nearly with all the patches and it's really great. If you put it on Oracle hardware, everything is there and it still works with Oracle. Once it's in installed the only issues that may arise are performance issues, and that may be a configuration problem on your end. 

At the end of the day, Oracle support will support you, and they will sort you out. They normally release patches on a regular basis. It used to be a monthly basis, however, I think now it's a quarterly basis. Those patches can help you if there's a new hardware release, which is not on your old Solaris environment.

How was the initial setup?

In the latest versions, the initial setup is not very complex. Solaris is normally of two variants. There is the SPARC variant and there is the Intel variant. 

With the implementation, the steps and procedures are very clear. You just install more if you're installing in SPARC or if you're installing it on an Oracle hardware.

It's very easy to install due to the fact that all the patches are there, unlike other products where you have to put apart from this other side of all these. With this solution, everything is there, so it's very straightforward. The implementation is very, very straightforward, and simple by the way.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

This is a free product. It doesn't cost anything. What you can purchase is support. 

If you buy Oracle hardware it's supported free with the hardware. If you're putting it on non-Oracle hardware, that is when you buy the support license, which is also very reasonable. It is $1000 dollars per year, so it's not overly expensive. 

If you compare what it can do with how much Oracle charges for support, it's more or less free.

What other advice do I have?

In our company, we don't use Oracle Solaris. As a person, I was employed as a Solaris System Administrator. I'm just a consultant. We don't use Oracle Solaris, because we're not big enough to use the solution ourselves. 

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I would highly recommend Oracle Solaris. It's a stable operating system and it's been around for a long time. If you're planning to have an Oracle Database, the best operating system for the Oracle Database is Oracle Solaris.

If anybody is implementing a new solution or a new environment and thinks of putting in Oracle Database, the first option would be Oracle Solaris, then they can look at other OSs like Windows and Linux.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: partner
Buddy Parker
Founder at Element Flux
Real User
Top 5
Provides flexibility and freedom to do whatever you need to do and is highly stable and resilient
Pros and Cons
  • "There is a lot of freedom and flexibility to install it really quickly. It is just very powerful in the sense that it doesn't take up as many resources to run as some of the other operating systems. It is open source, so it is free. There is no licensing fee. There is flexibility and freedom to do whatever you need to do. If you are familiar with the command line, you can jump on the command line and configure almost any part of the operating system that you want. If you are not comfortable with the command line, the graphical user interface has really improved ever since I started using Linux back in high school. It is really very simple to manage your settings and other things. You can also try out multiple desktop environments. As a matter of fact, on one of my laptops, I have installed five different desktop environments, and I can switch between them. If you don't like one, you can easily just install another one with a few commands, and you have got a whole new desktop right there, whereas, in Microsoft Windows or a Mac, you are just stuck with whatever they give you, and you have to wait until they sell you something else."
  • "Like most Linux systems, they can just keep increasing support in Ubuntu for hardware systems. They can increase the number of drivers so that Ubuntu can work on more hardware. They have been improving greatly, but they can definitely keep doing that."

What is our primary use case?

I use it for everything. I literally use it for any activity that I would do on a computer. I use it for writing code, browsing the web, shopping, and streaming videos and music. I also use it for graphics editing and testing.

How has it helped my organization?

It has definitely improved the way I do things. There are so many people who are paying for products that they could use for free. In addition, there are bugs and issues that I hear about from other companies. With this solution, you can reduce the amount you spend in general on technology. Because Linux runs really well, your tech issues are also minimal, and you have to spend less on tech support. 

What is most valuable?

There is a lot of freedom and flexibility to install it really quickly. It is just very powerful in the sense that it doesn't take up as many resources to run as some of the other operating systems. It is open source, so it is free. There is no licensing fee. 

There is flexibility and freedom to do whatever you need to do. If you are familiar with the command line, you can jump on the command line and configure almost any part of the operating system that you want. If you are not comfortable with the command line, the graphical user interface has really improved ever since I started using Linux back in high school. It is really very simple to manage your settings and other things.

You can also try out multiple desktop environments. As a matter of fact, on one of my laptops, I have installed five different desktop environments, and I can switch between them. If you don't like one, you can easily just install another one with a few commands, and you have got a whole new desktop right there, whereas, in Microsoft Windows or a Mac, you are just stuck with whatever they give you, and you have to wait until they sell you something else.

What needs improvement?

Like most Linux systems, they can just keep increasing support in Ubuntu for hardware systems. They can increase the number of drivers so that Ubuntu can work on more hardware. They have been improving greatly, but they can definitely keep doing that.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for at least four years. I use it every day.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It seems to be really stable for me. The cool thing is that it is a journaled system versus Windows in which a lot of things are written into memory. They've improved on this quite a bit. If your computer crashes in the middle of updates or something like that, you can still easily access and go back to maybe what it was before you tried the update. Another thing that is really cool is that you can upgrade an entire distribution version. You can upgrade from version 18.04 to 20.04.

A lot of web servers are probably running on some version of Linux, such as CentOS, and these web servers sometimes can go on for years without the need to be restarted. They are very resilient.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I am not really sure of a use case for scaling in Ubuntu. It is just an operating system. It is not like adding a server or something like that.

How are customer service and technical support?

I haven't used technical support at all. I have always used stack overflow.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I was using Windows. I switched to Ubuntu because I was getting more into programming and I wanted something flexible.

With Windows, everything is loaded into memory when the operating system is started. Linux is a journaled system, which means that you actually have all of that RAM available to process applications and run your applications rather than just running the operating system. There are various things that I like about Linux in that regard. If the computer crashes, I literally can recover the documents. I know that this is now happening in Windows systems, but I used to see that a lot more in Linux.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very straightforward. If you have it set up on a bootable USB drive, you just put it in the USB drive and then you can just watch for a few steps. You don't even have to be very tech-savvy in order to install it and set it up. It doesn't take a lot of know-how.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It is open source, so it is free. There is no licensing fee.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend this solution if you want a good resilient system, flexibility, and control over your operating system. You can upgrade without having to pay or even turning off the computer. You don't need to shut it down and install upgrades. You can literally upgrade to a newer distribution while using the computer for the most part.

I would rate Ubuntu Linux a nine out of ten because there is always room for growth. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Founder at a non-profit with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 5
Integrates well with application, stable, and PowerShell only installation beneficial
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature is this solution integrates very well with all Microsoft and all other mainstream software solutions and the design is very good. Windows has an option now allowing you to just install the Windows Core with the PowerShell without any graphical services running."
  • "I used to like the graphical interface and graphical philosophy in previous versions of Windows Server. I am not able to be as fast and efficient as I used to be using a graphical interface. However, Windows has moved to the PowerShell, it is powerful, but is still limited compared to what we do can do in Linux. Linux was built at the beginning of the command line interfaces which is why they have a very powerful command line."

What is our primary use case?

We are using this solution as a server operating system.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is this solution integrates very well with all Microsoft and all other mainstream software solutions and the design is very good. Windows has an option now allowing you to just install the Windows Core with the PowerShell without any graphical services running.

What needs improvement?

I used to like the graphical interface and graphical philosophy in previous versions of Windows Server. I am not able to be as fast and efficient as I used to be using a graphical interface. However, Windows has moved to the PowerShell, it is powerful, but is still limited compared to what we do can do in Linux. Linux was built at the beginning of the command line interfaces which is why they have a very powerful command line. 

When you work on the command line you can make scripts and then use them every time you want to complete a task. You can capitalize on past experiences by using a script to simplify them, such as when you need to install something or do configurations. Making those tasks faster and simplified. You end up saving a lot of time by using the command line which is best for administrators and the graphical interface is best for the end-user.

You can not do most of the automation on Windows that you can on Linux, it is not the same thing. Windows is improving but it is not at the same level as Linux.

When using a graphical interface it tends to have more bugs, vulnerabilities and weakens the server. Normally we install Linux on big servers that do not have any graphical interfaces inside. The fewer services you run the better it with be for security. We prefer most of the time installing Windows without the graphical interface. 

Overall Windows for us is more difficult and less efficient than Linux.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 25 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is stable. However, when you start putting in some extra layers, such as data intelligence inside, then problems tend to start happening.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server solutions for a long time. We started with Windows NT then switched to Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003, and all the way up to this current version. Additionally, we work with Linux and Windows 10.

How was the initial setup?

It is easy to do some types of deployments with Windows dedicated networks.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We have evaluated Linux and other Windows systems.

What other advice do I have?

I recently started using my Windows 10 with the Linux Subsystem for Windows, to install and administer all my Linux servers worldwide. I can run a DBM on the Linux Subsystem for Windows, Ubuntu, or Kali Linux, and can access my servers worldwide. Having Linux Subsystem running inside Windows 10, I have been enjoying using the operating system much more.

I cannot install a virtual machine inside the Subsystems which I do very easily on any Linux distribution. Additionally, after installing a virtual machine on Linux, the virtual machine will be more powerful than the Linux Subsystem for Windows. If Microsoft was able to achieve the same level of a virtual machine, then it will be very good for us to start doing many more operations inside of Windows.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
Get our free report covering Microsoft, Red Hat, openSUSE, and other competitors of Windows 10. Updated: January 2022.
563,327 professionals have used our research since 2012.