*BSD News Article 84356


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!sun4nl!fwi.uva.nl!not-for-mail
From: casper@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Solaris 2.6
Supersedes: <cancel.casper.32a7e8da@mail.fwi.uva.nl>
Date: 6 Dec 1996 10:35:22 +0100
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Netherlands
Lines: 81
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <casper.32a7e8da@mail.fwi.uva.nl>
References: <32986299.AC7@mail.esrin.esa.it> <57djlg$bks@agate.berkeley.edu>   <57dkbq$bsr@panix2.panix.com> <casper.329abb76@mail.fwi.uva.nl>   <57ej3a$7ij@panix2.panix.com> <casper.329ae8f2@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <57hhcp$kp9@innocence.interface-business.de> <mkl.849534999@rob.cs.tu-bs.de> <casper.32a2f5ee@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <32A535A3.167EB0E7@lehman.com> <casper.32a541be@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <32A6E4E3.41C67EA6@lehman.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mail.fwi.uva.nl
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.solaris:91559 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1690

Paul David Fox <pfox@lehman.com> writes:

>Can you elaborate on what that enables us to do from the command
>level. I know, for instance Linux has a full blown
>directory hierarchy in /proc and its useful for some things.
>But my personal interest is things like truss (and /usr/proc/bin which
>is nearly undocumented. Took me 6 months to realise it was there!)

Uhm not much, I think.  You can copy the a.out file from /proc
as well as the shared libs a program uses.

>E.g. can we officially do this:

>	truss -lX11 <cmd>


What do you want this to do?

>By the way, can you officially or unofficially say why these /proc
>extensions were done? Is it to be as good as the competition, bash
>the competition, someone at Sun internally wanted it bad, so it got
>done, some customer wanted it? I'm just curious as to why these
>little icings get done, when the bureaucracy at Sun can only think
>in terms of that terrible 'J' word.

I have no idea.

>I appreciate that but theres something more going on than this.
>My compilation times are abysmal and its not the shlib stuff that is
>the cause.

Compilation times have nothing to do with shared libs.

>Ok, lets try again! 1997 or 1998?

1997 (as other people saaid, probably around  May'June)

>I dont understand this. 2.5 vs 2.5.1 must imply a small difference
>in functionality/performance. If the difference is large, then one
>must ask why was 2.5 released and immediately followed by 2.5.1?
>If the diffs are that good then why not call it 2.6?

>To me, 2.5.1 sounds like a minor upgrade to 2.5. Were the changes
>that drastic? 

It's a minor upgrade but that doesn't mean people are just
going to upgrade.  (If it's minor, why upgrade :_)

And it is minor:
	- Ultra Enterprise support
	- Ultra-II support
	- Large uids.
	- Some performance enhancements for Pentium/PPro and for
	  Ultra 64 bit arithmetic

>In my opinion, 2.5. was fine except it looks like Sun ballsed up
>and released something that wasnt high on the quality control. So
>2.5.1 came into existing to fix those issues. But then Sun went
>on about all that WEB server performance hype. Oh well, thats
>company politics for you.

The 2.5.1/ISS thingy is yet another release [ISS= Internet Server Supplement]
which brings forward part of the 2.6 kernel socket code.

It's not patch-compatible with 2.5.1 and is really only intended for
webserver customers.

>I enjoy reading your comments because there seems to be very few
>people left at Sun who talk on the net and talk in 'Programmer-speak'
>instead of the market drivel.

>Keep up the good P/R.

Thanks.

Casper
-- 
Casper Dik - Sun Microsystems - via my guest account at the University
of Amsterdam.  My work e-mail address is: Casper.Dik@Holland.Sun.COM
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.