Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!info.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!gateway.qnx.com!not-for-mail From: doug@qnx.com (Doug Santry) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Solaris vs SunOs Date: 26 Aug 1996 13:56:02 -0400 Organization: QNX Software Systems Lines: 113 Message-ID: <4vsofi$ngd@qnx.com> References: <4vabsr$4mt@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> <4vf6dq$sgj@panix.com> <4vfist$kv@hermes.acs.unt.edu> <4vji3t$6f1@symiserver2.symantec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gateway.qnx.com In article <4vji3t$6f1@symiserver2.symantec.com>, <tedm@agora.rdrop.com> wrote: >In <4vfist$kv@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jackson@replicant.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) writes: >>In article <4vf6dq$sgj@panix.com>, Bryan Althaus <bryan@panix.com> wrote: >> >>> ATTENTION: UCB BSD is DEAD... SunOS 4.x is DEAD... move on to >>> Solaris 2.x it's Sun's future, and SVR4 is SCO's and HP's future >>> also. >> >>I know I'll regret not ignoring this flamebait. >> >>BSD is not dead. With the advent of 386bsd, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and >>OpenBSD there are far more computers and users running BSD UNIX now >>than any time in history. All the managers I know of who managed both > >The one thing about HP and Sun though that people forget is that they are >Unix hardware vendors. The real future of Unix is Unix running on Intel >chips, not Unix running on somebodies idea of a super-risc proprietary as Can't agree here at all. Unix has a heck of a future running on everything from Cray to Sun and SGI boxes. >all get out hardware box. That's the old idea of Unix, and it is a terrible Why is Intel "open"? Because they sue people for reverse engineering their instruction set? Because they sue people for using the x86 "name"? Why is Intel "open"? They answer to no commitiees or any kind of public forum. >anchor in acceptance of Unix in the corporate arena. >How many times have you talked to people who think that Unix cannot run on >the 386, 486, 586, 686 chip PC's? I've talked to lots of people like that who's only >exposure to Unix is some Sparcstation with a monitor weighing 200 pounds sitting >on it that is totally incompatible with any VGA monitor ever produced. With VGA *sucks*! And one might argue that VGA is "incompatible" RGB type monitor drivers. Why should the whole computer industry use VGA? Cuz IBM kludged, er, developed it? >that kind of backing it is no wonder people are running to NT. Totally unsubstantiated. I've been hearing this for years and still don't know anybody using it. Even os2 out sells it by a hefty margin. >People like HP and Sun want to sell workstation hardware, nice, incompatible, "incompatible" with what? Intel is "incompatible" with SPARC and powerpc. What is your point? >hardware that cannot be repaired by the local PC chop-shop, must be Those clowns couldn't repair a calculator. All they do is replace stuff, not repair it. >carried under an expensive service contract, and is obsolete a year later And Intel PCs really hold their value too. What a joke. >necessitating an expensive upgrade to a new hardware box. They run Unix on Still using your 386? No, a 486? No? Pentium? Pentium Pro? *All* vendors are constantly coming with new faster systems. >there because they were able to liscense the source from AT&T years ago, >they are not software companies, understand. Sure they are. Ever hear of a little company called SunSoft? A whole business division dedicated to software. HP, IBM etc. all are software and hardware companies. In fact, companies that only sell the OS(not the hardware) are a new phenom., a result of the Intel mass market. >The fact is that the risc-vs-cisc processor arguement died a long time ago, You sir, are not well read. When did this happen? You might want to tell all the jounrals and researchers working in this area so they can "get on with their lives". >cisc has overwhelmingly won, and now with the advent of the PCI bus the Amazing! Really, truly amazing! What the hell are you talking about? >proprietary-workstation-hardware vs the Intel-IBMPC hardware arguement Why isn't "Intel-IBMPC hardware" proprietary? >is dead as well. What planet are you on? >It's like Apple Computers. Everyone knows that the day that the MacOS >gets ported to the IBM PC is the day that Apple sells their last Macintosh >computer, that is why a MacOS port to Intel will never happen. The same is Mac hardware is also tons easier to configure. You buy a print and you plug it in. Easy. PC hardware is nightmarish with its IRQ conflicts and DMA quagmires. >true of HP/UX, at least Sun is making an attempt to leave an escape hatch You think people buy HPs to get HP/UX? But they really want Intel? They buy HPs for power/$$$ and put up with HP/UX. >for themselves, although it's always interesting to me how much better >Solaris runs on Sun hardware than the competition's. I'm going to guess that you are one of those folks whose exposure to computing consists of word-processing and maybe some visual-basic programming. There is more to the world. Not everybody is going to use Sun, nor is everybody going to use Intel based stuff. Nobody has built a hardware/software combo yet that does everything everybody needs. Till then, there is room for lots of machine vendors and software vendors. DJS