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.mathworks.com!fu-berlin.de!news.belwue.de!news.uni-ulm.de!borchert From: borchert@turing.mathematik.uni-ulm.de (Andreas Borchert) Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.osf.osf1 Subject: Re: Solaris 2.6 Date: 10 Dec 1996 09:36:22 GMT Organization: University of Ulm, SAI, Germany Lines: 66 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <58jaum$er7@arktur.rz.uni-ulm.de> References: <32986299.AC7@mail.esrin.esa.it> <casper.329c06bc@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <57ik5l$12i$1@shade.twinsun.com> <x7917mx5gx.fsf@dumbcat.codewright.com> <57shh0$o3u@web.nmti.com> <57ui72$4li@arktur.rz.uni-ulm.de> <32AA9AA8.236B@spirit.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: turing.mathematik.uni-ulm.de X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.0.0 (BETA) UNIX) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.solaris:91963 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1750 comp.unix.osf.osf1:16959 On Sun, 08 Dec 1996 21:38:33 +1100, Blair Phillips <blairp@spirit.net.au> wrote: > Andreas Borchert wrote: > > > > There may be arguments how the transition is done best. But DEC > > is surely not a good example for binary compatibility: Not that > > they only are trying to support multiple OSes they also offer multiple > > hardware platforms as well. This opens always the question how long > > they will continue to support the various variants. > > What a load of old cobblers! > I can only assume that you are fairly new to the world of UNIX systems I'm familiar with UNIX since 1981 (beginning with UNIX Edition VI) and I have worked with myriads of UNIX systems since. > and > didn't live through the period in the 80's when Sun introduced (over > about > 5 years) the Sun 1, Sun 2, Sun 3 and Sun 4 architechtures, each > incompatible > with its predecessor. Sun 2 binaries may be run on Sun 3 workstations. I do not know anything about the Sun 1 to Sun 2 transition except that both are based on the m68k processor family -- so probably there was compatiblity as well. There is one major switch only from Sun3 to Sun4 (from m68k to SPARC). > Then, to add insult to injury, they switched from > BSD > to System V (after AT&T bought a substantial chunk of the company) and > dropped > their customers in the brown smelly stuff yet again. SunOS 4.x binaries may be run under SunOS 5.5 (and partially on earlier releases of SunOS 5.x as well). This has been told many times. > Sun have always been good at delivering good performance for their > price, but > their attitude to their installed base seems to be: If the > price/performance > bonus is high enough, customers will bear the cost of conversion, and, > anyway, > if they switch vendors, there are plenty more (new customers) where they > came > from! Why do all people like to bash Sun without having founded arguments for it? > And it seems to me that they are proposing trashing the PC installed > base and > replacing it by JavaStations as a solution to the PC management problem. > So I wouldn't agree that Sun has totally outgrown their earlier > arrogance when > it comes to upgrades. When somebody offers an alternative to the myriads of unmanagable PCs running MicroSoft products you are calling him arrogant, eh? Andreas. -- Andreas Borchert, Universitaet Ulm, SAI, Helmholtzstr. 18, 89069 Ulm, Germany E-Mail: borchert@mathematik.uni-ulm.de WWW: http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/sai/borchert/ PGP key available via ``finger borchert@laborix.mathematik.uni-ulm.de''