&gt; How about no priority 1 incidents at 02:03 in the morning, resulting in sleepless nights until 07:30 - 08:30 every day during one&#x27;s on call, wasted on stupid problems like ext3 filesystem corruption caused by lost writes (again: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;danluu.com&#x2F;file-consistency&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;danluu.com&#x2F;file-consistency&#x2F;</a>)? Is that a compelling enough reason?<p>I won&#x27;t have calls about corrupted ext3, because I use XFS, so not much of
a point.<p>&quot;No priority 1 incidents&quot; is not a function of an operating system, so it
can&#x27;t be a compelling reason to switch. You would still need to elaborate why
exactly Linux doesn&#x27;t work, especially when it works well enough in most
admins&#x27; perception.<p>&gt; A programming environment fully supporting standards.<p>Becasue Linux doesn&#x27;t support a very important standard of... Could you help
me here? Nothing comes to my mind.<p>&gt; Same software which runs on Linux.<p>Sweet. I should learn Solaris, so I can run the same software as I currently
can on Linux.<p>Do you hear how ridiculous this point is?<p>&gt; Guaranteed application binary interface backward compatibility: compile on oldest SunOS 5. you can find, run on all the versions newer than that one.<p>Only ABI of kernel and (probably) OS-supplied libraries, which is not that
much when it comes to what most of the companies run.<p>&gt; Change schedulers on the fly, as you need them. Realtime subsystem.<p>Of course, because Linux doesn&#x27;t allow to change schedulers and has no
realtime subsystem.<p>&gt; kdb and mdb: the best post mortem analysis tools in the industry (what are those system administrators going to do when the kernel crashes so bad that it locks up and doesn&#x27;t dump a stack trace?)<p>This is a very distant benefit. One needs to be accustomed with kernel-level
code in the first place to make any use of these.<p>&gt; Full security isolation and bare metal performance with zones.<p>You get bare metal performance with Linux containers as well, so not a strong
point. Only the &quot;full security isolation&quot; could be a sensible reason, but
then, it should be proven by close scrutiny. I haven&#x27;t heard too much about
people analyzing Solaris zones, so I&#x27;m not likely to be convinced out of thin
air that this argument applies.<p>&gt; Exhaustive documentation (&quot;he who can read is clearly at an advantage&quot;), much of it applicable to illumos &#x2F; SmartOS:<p>&gt; <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.oracle.com&#x2F;cd&#x2F;E19253-01&#x2F;817-1985&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.oracle.com&#x2F;cd&#x2F;E19253-01&#x2F;817-1985&#x2F;</a><p>OK, let&#x27;s go to booting chapter:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.oracle.com&#x2F;cd&#x2F;E19253-01&#x2F;817-1985&#x2F;hboverview-25463&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.oracle.com&#x2F;cd&#x2F;E19253-01&#x2F;817-1985&#x2F;hboverview-2546...</a><p>This is <i>barely</i> enough for a trained sysadmin to learn how booting works and
where to nudge when things go awry or how to do less standard tasks (e.g. I&#x27;m
not sure how much time would it take me if I needed to build a custom live CD
image; probably quite a lot, judging from <i>boot(1M)</i> man page).<p>Even if it&#x27;s exhaustive, it suffers from not having much between
step-by-step-and-don&#x27;t-think instructions and deep documentation that requires
prior understanding of the system.<p>&gt; Should I go on?<p>You haven&#x27;t provided many arguments that would be sensible reasons (let alone
being strong reasons) to invest in migrating to Solaris.<p>I think we should disengage from this discussion. If I was in (what I believe
is) your state of mind, I couldn&#x27;t muster any good argument that would
convince my interlocutor.