Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.aix:48703 comp.unix.bsd:15539 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:7711 comp.unix.solaris:28170 comp.unix.unixware:15080 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.cerf.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!news.uni-c.dk!pd From: pd@kubism.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard SFE) Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.unixware Subject: Re: Unix for PC Date: 1 Dec 1994 23:09:41 GMT Organization: What? Me? Organized? Lines: 45 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <3bll3l$mdu@news.uni-c.dk> References: <199411210319.TAA18133@nic.cerf.net> <CHRISB.94Nov30100302@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> <3bihms$5pf@decaxp.harvard.edu> <palowodaD04HqA.LAJ@netcom.com> <3bkt7c$b77@news.uni-c.dk> <3bl655$skk@mail.fwi.uva.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: stat.kubism.ku.dk In <3bl655$skk@mail.fwi.uva.nl> casper@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik) writes: >pd@kubism.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard SFE) writes: >>Now this is malicious slandering if ever I saw it. Have YOU seen >>the patch list for Solaris 2.3 lately? >The patchlist is long, but the majority of patches need not be applied. >We've not applied that many Solaris patches and of the Solaris patches >that we did apply, there's only a very small number that we applied >because we were hit by a bug. Solaris 2.4 can actually run on a umber >of systems w/o applying patches. (Most kernel problems are related to >MP, which is a very difficult subject) I certainly don't want to argue with Casper on this matter. He's the expert! However note that (a) We're still stuck at 2.3 and (b) I was reacting to someone bashing my pet toy, Linux. >>Most of the problems with Linux and X come from newbies getting >>instantly promoted to sysadmins on a Unix system. Of course they >>get confused initially. Also, regarding X, the setup is >>[...] >What do you think constitutes the majority of problems with >Solaris 2.x? The majority of migration headaches come from >people who decide that they need to upgrade one weekend and do so. >They're surprised at so many changes. Hmm. I'd hardly characterize myself as a freshly promoted newbie. We did actually plan pretty carefully before we decided to upgrade. However, several things came as nasty surprises: binary non-compatibility for one, we had actually been counting on not having to upgrade our key freeware applications, but found that almost every single one had to be recompiled and kept around in both version, because a few machines could not be upgraded without losing functionality. Another one was that workstations with 8Mb became instantly unusable for OpenWindows. Also, we observed severe performance hits until we doubled the servers memory. -- O_ ---- Peter Dalgaard c/ /' --- Dept. of Biostatistics ( ) \( ) -- University of Copenhagen ~~~~~~~~~~ - (pd@kubism.ku.dk)