*BSD News Article 59026


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!not-for-mail
From: thorpej@lestat.nas.nasa.gov (Jason R Thorpe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison)
Date: 14 Jan 1996 22:24:24 -0800
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Project - NASA Ames
Lines: 59
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4dcruo$5eq@lestat.nas.nasa.gov>
References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4cu7t0$mg5@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4cv8j1$59k@park.uvsc.edu> <4cvjpk$rpf@durban.vector.co.za>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lestat.nas.nasa.gov
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:1823 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:1955 comp.unix.solaris:56527 comp.unix.aix:68116

In article <4cvjpk$rpf@durban.vector.co.za>,
Gavin Maltby <gavin@durban.vector.co.za> wrote:

>Featurewise, Solaris has many times more to offer an application.

...and many times the bloat.  Worth noting, SunOS _4_ was over-bloated, IMHO.

>No developer looks at Solaris 2 and say "I am glad none of those
>features are in SunOS 4".  OK so having to use the SVID etc in 
>development might not be what everyone would love,  but I suspect
>that a lot of people like the BSD enviroment just because that is
>what they *know* and they refuse to adapt and learn the intracies
>of the new interface.

Many of us have, and, quite frankly, think the New World Order *SUCKS* :-)

"Raise your hand if you're forced to code for Solaris!"

Sun, IMO, should have taken the 4.4BSD approach; compatibility with
BSD interfaces, but the addition of the standardized interfaces.  Imagine
how cool SunOS 5 *could* have been if it were a 4.4BSD-derived system...

>Solaris = SVR4 + a lot of features!  What you are really bitter about
>is that BSD style UNIX did not win out or reach critical mass over
>SVR4.  That's something you just have to deal with---it happened and

Bitter?  *chuckle*  Myself, no.  I'll always have the option of running
a BSD system on my SPARC hardware and still run all those Solaris 2.x
applications.  And, as I demonstrated recently by posting my implementation
of screenblank(1) to a USENET group, software written on/for a modern
BSD system is quite easily adapted to a SVR4 system, even if it uses signal
facilities, etc.

>isn't about to unravel.  I am sure that there are those at SunSoft
>who preferred the BSD way,  but there was just no way to stay with it.
>Sun would be a small niche-market workstation player if they had not
>overhauled SunOS 4 to SunOS 5/Solaris 2.  If you want a multi-billion
>dollar company to slowly strangle itself while pandering just to your
>needs, start it yourself!

I somehow don't think that Sun would have strangled themselves by sticking
with a BSD system.  There's something to be said for being the defacto
standard.  I mean, Domain/OS still persists in engineering circles (and
it's just plain _weird_ :-), HP-UX survived _forever_ as a sick combination
of 4.3 and SVR3, etc.

My personal belief is that if anything were to strangle Sun, it would be
the hardware...I just don't get the same warm-fuzzy feeling about the SS20
as I do the SS2 (which, you must admit, is one *hell* of a little
work-horse).  That SS2, I might add, is about 2 to 3 times faster
running NetBSD than Solaris 2.4.  Now, _that's_ a feature, which I plan
to take advantage of now that I can run a modern BSD system on the SS20
as well.

-- 
Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                               Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6                                          Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                                Pager: 415.428.6939