Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.aix:48805 comp.unix.bsd:15561 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:7729 comp.unix.solaris:28272 comp.unix.unixware:15162 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgiblab!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nntp.et.byu.edu!news.provo.novell.com!bikini!darrend From: darrend@bikini.USG.Sandy.Novell.COM (Darren R. Davis) Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.unixware Subject: Re: Unix for PC Date: 12 Dec 1994 21:07:58 GMT Organization: Novell Inc. Lines: 105 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <3cie3e$rej@bantu.Provo.Novell.COM> References: <3bvmo1$hgr@cascade.pnw.net> <STEINAR.HAUG.94Dec6203939@runit.sintef.no> <D0Ex7E.2nv@ssbunews.ih.att.com> <3c4rhh$54a@bantu.provo.novell.com> <3c5cos$bhb@crl7.crl.com> <3c86fs$3k5@bantu.Provo.Novell.COM> <rbbrownD0pIvC.2uJ@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bikini.usg.sandy.novell.com In article <rbbrownD0pIvC.2uJ@netcom.com>, rbbrown@netcom.com (Randolph B. Brown) writes: |> Darren R. Davis (darrend@bikini.USG.Sandy.Novell.COM) , responding to |> claims of better featire set in Solaris in article |> <3c5cos$bhb@crl7.crl.com> by jpatrick@crl.com (J. Heather Patrick) |> writes: (edited to attempt to improve bandwidth usage, therby risking |> flames from folks who have no sympathy for those with slow newsfeeds; |> if you really want to read the whole other article again, look up |> the reference) |> |> [snip] |> |> : |> 1) cachefs |> : Cache for what? Memory? How about memfs in UnixWare 2.0. |> |> Darren, that's two strikes in one response. First, cachefs uses local |> disk space to cache files accessed through NFS; something like Andrew |> FS or DCE's DFS. It's a big win in certain situations, such as |> distributing a set of (read-only) applications. I would have preferred |> that they do AFS or DCE with DFS, but cachefs has its points. Second, |> sorry, but UnixWare 2.0 isn't shipping; Solaris 2.4 for Intel is. I |> can't compare the two. If you start, we'll have to drag in Cairo, Daytona, |> OSF/1 microkernel with full DCE and DME on the 800 MHz Alpha-2, Solaris |> on PowerPC, and so on. I'd rather not. |> |> [snip] I will give you the point about not comparing to UnixWare 2.0 since it is not shipping, but on the next issue. |> |> : |> 3) thread support |> : UnixWare 2.0 |> |> First, unless Novell's developers are uniquely better than all others |> (Unix, VMS, NT, *all* others), it will take some time (say about 1 |> year of serious use) to get most of the gotchas wrung out of your |> threads. Solaris has been shipping with threads (kernel, device |> driver, streams, and application) for a long time. Second, UnixWare |> 2.0 isn't shipping yet, so it really doesn't count at all, particularly |> toward maturity time. As I pointed out in another thread, Novell aquired USL. What makes people think they JUST developed threads. USL has been delievering MP OSes to companies such as NCR. Believe me, we have just as many years of experience with MP and threads as Sun. The only thing that is new is binaries in a red box. |> |> [snip] |> |> : |> 6) a better X environment |> : A non-standard X environment! |> |> Once again, you seem a little uninformed. Solaris 2.4 ships with MIT |> X11 and Display Postscript. NeWS is gone. You have a choice between |> Motif and OpenLook, and CDE snapshot is available. I can't see what's |> non-standard. We do not have the Display Postscript, but we have everything else. Again, I appoligize for this comment as I was going on my memories of SunOS 4.x of about two years ago. |> |> [snip] |> |> : |> 8) working man pages |> : Mine work fine. |> |> Well, your experience differs from that of the usual PE user. Have that many people really had problem with this? |> |> : |> 9) a proper sysvr4 kernal that doesn't have to be compiled |> : What does this mean? |> |> It means you don't have to recompile the kernel to add device drivers |> or change tuning parameters or even add patches. All device drivers are |> loadable. You can actually add new disks without turning off the |> system, or change the number of pseudotty's or POSIX_CHOWN_RESTRICTED |> (or however it's spelled) by editing a file and rebooting. Yes, UnixWare has all the dynamic loadable stuff just like Solaris, After all, we are SVR4.2 where SunOS was only built on SVR4.0. |> |> [snip] |> |> Darren, I actually *like* UnixWare. But I've always felt that the |> folks at Novell were uninformed about what is really available in |> Solaris or HPUX, or even in AIX or OSF/1. (I think AT&T GIS nee' NCR |> can play with these folks, but it's a secret.) The competition for |> advanced features isn't SCO or Interactive. Agreed, but at this time I guess I will need to defer until UnixWare 2.0. And again, my whole point was not to get into a pissing match over OSes. I was just trying to point out how people use subjective statements as a basis for choosing OSes. I do like the actual specifics as opposed to the blanket statements such as my NFS is better than yours. I wanted to know how. Thanks for the info... Darren R. Davis UnixWare Developer Support Engineer Novell Developer Support