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!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: bryan@panix.com (Bryan Althaus) Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.osf.osf1 Subject: Re: Solaris 2.6 Followup-To: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.osf.osf1 Date: 13 Dec 1996 10:37:17 -0500 Organization: Somewhere in Manhattan Lines: 49 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <58rt7d$dmr@panix.com> References: <32986299.AC7@mail.esrin.esa.it> <58n5q1$9ci@arktur.rz.uni-ulm.de> <58pdbt$mjv@web.nmti.com> <58rqg5$4gc@panix.com> <58rrjp$c1c@panix2.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.solaris:92490 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1816 comp.unix.internals:11617 comp.unix.osf.osf1:17056 Thor Lancelot Simon (tls@panix.com) wrote: : In article <58rqg5$4gc@panix.com>, Bryan Althaus <bryan@panix.com> wrote: : >Peter da Silva (peter@nmti.com) wrote: : >: 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? : >: : >: : >: 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. : > : >This is such bullshit. Read your last line. You haven't used Solaris : >in a long time. Most people consider Solaris from 2.4 on. So in all : >your arguements your talking about Solaris 2.0->2.3, which everyone : >knew was buggy and to stay away from. : : Oh? I seem to recall Sun pushing a lot of customers, including me, very, very : hard to use "Solaris 2.0->2.3". I also seem to recall each and every new : Solaris release from 2.0 to 2.4 claiming to not be buggy, not be a total : performance dog, etc. and so forth. : : I recall quite a bit of hardware that was supported by "Solaris 2.0->2.3" : which was *not* supported by SunOS4.1.3 until other SPARC vendors did it : themselves and Sun was forced to. Sun downright *coerced* its customers to : use early Solaris 2 versions, McNealy et al. have said publicly they "screwed up" in not making the move to Solaris easier instead of forcing Solaris on them. Old news... : and now they're surprised that Solaris has a bad reputation in consequence? Not around people who have used it in the last couple of years! : Peter -- somewhere around 2.5 or 2.5.1, Solaris actually got usable. Please. I've used Solaris since 2.4EA1 and it's was useable and stable even on an Intel box let alone Sparc.