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.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> 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: 18 Jan 1996 06:45:27 GMT Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah Lines: 101 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <4dkqa7$27e@park.uvsc.edu> References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4dbun0$j2f@park.uvsc.edu> <4dg90i$6le@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <4dh42v$rnv@park.uvsc.edu> <4djgkh$kgn@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2020 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2177 comp.unix.solaris:57586 comp.unix.aix:68998 fwp@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) wrote: ] Fact: 4.x dropped support for 68k and x86 some time ago. You won't find ] support for either architecture in 4.1.3 or 4.1.4 (the last release ] that supported the 68k was 4.1.1_U1, I'm not sure about the 386i). I don't deny this. I submit that this was Sun's choice, not a sudden failure of all 68k and x86 code to operate after a certain date. Do you deny that ISP startups will typically use Intel hardware or use used non-Intel hardware? Cheap is a factor. In the context of an ISP startup, OS support for older hardware is a factor because cheap is a factor. ] Fact: A major reason given for dropping support for these architectures ] was dropped from later 4.x releases was the difficulty of ] maintaining the 4.x code base for them. 4.x source wasn't ] written with the portability constraints needed to support ] several architectures from the same code base. Maintaining ] multiple architectures in a practical fashion would have required ] a major rewrite of the 4.x code. There is every reason to expect ] that such a rewrite would have engendered many of the same ] performance problems and bugs that existed in earlier releases of ] 5.x. I don't deny that was the reason given. I do question the basis for that reason.. My statements were in support of my posted statement: | 4) Available for Motorolla based hadware so a heterogeneous | environment can provide the user with a near-identical | interface acress platforms (Intel isn't an argument here; | remember the 386i?). Specifically, I was addressing the issue of why 68k hardware support was an advantage for 4.x over 5.x. I believe this has been adequately covered elsewhere. ] Fact: Even when it did support intel, 4.x "ran on x86" only in the ] sense that it ran on Sun's 386i platform. You couldn't by a PC ] and run 4.x on it. 5.x does, however, support commodity PC ] hardware. Claiming that 4.x x86 support and 5.x x86 support are ] anywhere near equivalent is silly. There was a conscious choice to not develop the necessary drivers. It was certainly *possible* for it to run on commodity x86 rather than Sun hardware. ] > ] >5) Compiles most net sources "out of the box" without ] > ] > modification or use of a compatability environment. ] > ] ] > ] Is true for Solaris 2.x for most non-ancient net software. ] > ] It's even more true in Solaris 2.5. ] > ] > Because of the compatability environment. ] ] No. I have a wide variety of net source compiled under 5.x. None ] required the compatibility environment (I know because the system ] I compile most of the code on doesn't have the compatibility environment ] installed). I don't have any way of personally testing compilability without the compatability environment installed. I would be very interested in the results of a "compilability cookoff" for the contents of the comp*sources* archives. It is my understanding that most of the code in the source archives requires BSD interfaces and/or libraries. Clearly, someone would have to have a lot of hardware to do this type of test. [ ... rancor and my rancorous response that I was going to post ... ] Can we go back to discussing the subject line instead of making me defend tangential discussions? Dan Stromberg has a couple of nice points potentially in favor of Solaris as an ISP platform; unfortunately, they came at the very end of a 2297 line, 100k "discussion". I can't (or rather won't) post them without his permission, since the exchange was private email. With his permission (or posting of the points), we can pick up there. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.