Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!coopnews.coop.net!news.den.mmc.com!news.vf.lmco.com!bea.atl.lmco.com!atl.lmco.com!rdeal From: rdeal@atl.lmco.com (Richard Deal) Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.osf.osf1 Subject: Re: Solaris 2.6 Date: 13 Dec 1996 13:59:53 GMT Organization: ATL Lockheed Martin Lines: 82 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <58rngp$17s5@bea.atl.lmco.com> References: <32986299.AC7@mail.esrin.esa.it> <58ma5l$kb2@abyss.west.sun.com> <58mnvu$h27@web.nmti.com> <58n5q1$9ci@arktur.rz.uni-ulm.de> <58pdbt$mjv@web.nmti.com> Reply-To: rdeal@atl.lmco.com NNTP-Posting-Host: intrepid.ATL.LMCO.COM X-newsreader: xrn 8.03-beta-17 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.solaris:92454 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1811 comp.unix.internals:11612 comp.unix.osf.osf1:17047 In article <58pdbt$mjv@web.nmti.com>, peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <58n5q1$9ci@arktur.rz.uni-ulm.de>, > Andreas Borchert <borchert@turing.mathematik.uni-ulm.de> wrote: > > On 11 Dec 1996 16:37:18 GMT, Peter da Silva <peter@nmti.com> wrote: > > > I've got a bunch of reasons for disliking Solaris. That it's based on System > > > V isn't one of them. I've got far more experience with System V than BSD. > > > Would you please so kind to enumerate some of your reasons? I find it hard to believe you have much SysV experience. My first Unix system was A/UX wich is SysVr2. I have always preffered the SysV admin and user env., so when solaris came out I switched to it. I was running solaris 2.0 on my desk and started switching the network over at 2.3. By 2.4 (early access) I had 95% of the computers I mantained running it. I was able to do this by giveing the users everything they had under 4.1.3 under solaris 2.x. This means that I had to recompile all the public domain software or run under binary compatibility mode as well as the commercial and local written software. The only had part was getting some of the commercial software since some of the 3rd party companies had not yeaht ported their software. Alot of it I just run under binary compatibility mode, till they got their own port. All in all it is usually quite trivial to port or compile software under solaris. The code that is the hardest (and not really hard at all) is code that is neither SysV or BSD. I have seen alot of code that mixes sysV and BSD lib. calls pretty much line by line. To compile this stuff you pretty much just need to link in the BSD libs, one more -l, boy that was hard. > > What, again? > (1) It's a very large and complex system. > (but it doesn't do much more than simpler systems) not all that large or complex. Just install the minimal solaris and you will only have SysV. The kernal is tiny since all device drivers are loadable modules. If you install the full up version then it is still about the same size to smaller than most other commercial Unix distributions. It also does tend to do much more. > (2) It doesn't provide good System V administrative semantics. > (but it uses System V commands and files) The sysV admin semantics are exactly the same as on any other TRUE sysV system. I wish it used more of inittab myself but most sysV systems don't these days. what exactly is not sysV like as far as Admin semantics go? > (3) It doesn't provide good BSD administrative semantics. > (but it does use some BSD stuff as well) no how would it do that. Solaris is SysV NOT BSD. What system does give you both BSD and SysV admin. semantics? Solaris only provides some BSD development and user enterface but they are optional. > (4) It's harder to port System V software to Solaris than to other > System V boxes. > (that's UHC, Intel UNIX, Unixware, and Xenix software) I really don't understand this one. I have never had any problem porting software that was written useing only sysV calls. > (5) BSD software ports pretty well, but you have to make sure to set > your paths right to make sure you don't get the System V environment. > (Watch out for /usr/ccs/bin) Well there has to be some way to destenguish between the sysV libs and the BSD libs. > (6) On the same hardware, it doesn't perform as well as SunOS. > (Of course SunOS doesn't perform at all on the new hardware. Sigh) Well now that doesn't seem to be true now does it. solaris 2.4 performed the same as SunOS 4.1.3 for nearly all single threaded benchmarks. Solaris 2.3 outperformed SunOS 4.1.3 for most multithreaded benchmarks. Solaris 2.5 outperforms SunOS 4.1.3 for nearly all benchmarks. > > Now, some of these have apparently been fixed in 2.4 and 2.5, and of course > porting System V software has become less of an issue... I've done my ports, > and new software that uses the System V interfaces tends to be written for > the Solaris environment now. But Solaris gave me a pretty bad time for a > pretty long time, and I'm not much interested in renewing my acquaintance > with it. > -- > </peter> -- #include <std/*> '91 FLT The Butcher Butch Deal rdeal@atl.lmco.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------------