>>869731 (OP)
>Have you played with any of those?
I've tried OpenIndiana on and off.
Pros
>seemed quite stable
>ZFS in kernel, used by default
>had most of the software I use on a regular basis available as packages
>wasn't too difficult to compile most of the rest of the software I use
Cons
>now that Sun/Oracle is no longer contributing code drops, the ZFS they have is, AFAIK, no better than the ZFS available for e.g. FreeBSD
>small development team, so bugs and security vulns may not get chased down very quickly; I've read that the project is struggling to stay afloat
>resource hungry (uses lots of RAM in particular)
>no way to do full disk encryption, as far as I can tell
>last I checked, building the entire system was still a fucked-up process due some blobs and some Sun tools that were still required, even though the system was mostly built with a GNU toolchain
>lots of people write software for Linux and assume that makes it able to run on any Unix-like, but that's not really the case; not everything you might want to compile and run on OI will work without porting, sometimes minor, sometimes less so
Neutral
>poorer hardware support than Linux; but that's true of every Unix-like that's not Linux, so I'm putting it under "Neutral"
>less choice in user interfaces out of the box, but their default DE is quite usable, so maybe you don't care
>administration is much different than on Linux or FreeBSD
CDDL's a retarded license; since Oracle decided to kill OpenSolaris, it would have been nice if they had just relicensed the code they had already released under something simpler
Overall, I was able to do on OI most of what I do on Linux: web browsing, music, version control, amateurish programming, basic image editing, transfer pics from my camera, that sort of thing. In the end, though I just saw no compelling reason to use it over Linux. And the lack of full disk encryption was a real bummer.