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.