No more IDE support for Sol.10?
John Burns
tried to install it there seemed to be no IDE support, he says Sun have
deleted IDE support and removed a lot of older things like OBP upgrades
from their site recently. Is this true?
--
Who needs a life when you've got Unix? :-)
Email: jo...@unixnerd.demon.co.uk, John G.Burns B.Eng, Bonny Scotland
Web : http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk - The Ultimate BMW Homepage!
Need Sun or HP Unix kit? http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/unix.html
www.Strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible price
Daniel Rock
> A friend downloaded the latest Solaris 10 for his Blade 100. When he
> tried to install it there seemed to be no IDE support, he says Sun have
> deleted IDE support and removed a lot of older things like OBP upgrades
> from their site recently. Is this true?
No.
--
Daniel
Benjamin Gawert
> A friend downloaded the latest Solaris 10 for his Blade 100. When he
> tried to install it there seemed to be no IDE support, he says Sun have
> deleted IDE support and removed a lot of older things like OBP upgrades
> from their site recently. Is this true?
You really think Sun would be so stupid to eliminate support for the
only interface that runs optical media in their newer and current
servers and workstations?
Benjamin
YTC#1
Actually, yes.
This is the same company that once killed of Solaris on the x86 platform :-)
--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community and not every one is friendly"
http://www.ytc1.co.uk
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/
Casper H.S. Dik
>Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>> * John Burns:
>>> A friend downloaded the latest Solaris 10 for his Blade 100. When he
>>> tried to install it there seemed to be no IDE support, he says Sun have
>>> deleted IDE support and removed a lot of older things like OBP upgrades
>>> from their site recently. Is this true?
>>
>> You really think Sun would be so stupid to eliminate support for the
>> only interface that runs optical media in their newer and current
>> servers and workstations?
>>
>Actually, yes.
>This is the same company that once killed of Solaris on the x86 platform :-)
Since many current x86 platforms still only have a ATA compliant harddisk
controllers, I'm sure it is not true.
(E.g., the Atom 230 boards have IDE and SATA connectors but the controller
pretends to an ATA controller)
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
YTC#1
> YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>>> * John Burns:
>>>> A friend downloaded the latest Solaris 10 for his Blade 100. When he
>>>> tried to install it there seemed to be no IDE support, he says Sun have
>>>> deleted IDE support and removed a lot of older things like OBP upgrades
>>>> from their site recently. Is this true?
>>> You really think Sun would be so stupid to eliminate support for the
>>> only interface that runs optical media in their newer and current
>>> servers and workstations?
>>>
>
>> Actually, yes.
>> This is the same company that once killed of Solaris on the x86 platform :-)
>
> Since many current x86 platforms still only have a ATA compliant harddisk
> controllers, I'm sure it is not true.
>
It was my usual sarcastic humour :-)
> (E.g., the Atom 230 boards have IDE and SATA connectors but the controller
> pretends to an ATA controller)
>
--
Bruce Porter
XJR1300SP, XJ900F, GSX750W, GSX250, Pegaso 650 Trail
POTM#1(KoTL), WUSS#1 , YTC#1(bar), OSOS#2(KoTL) , DS#3 , IbW#18 ,Apostle#8
Benjamin Gawert
>> You really think Sun would be so stupid to eliminate support for the
>> only interface that runs optical media in their newer and current
>> servers and workstations?
>
> Actually, yes.
> This is the same company that once killed of Solaris on the x86 platform
> :-)
Right, at a time when their own Solaris machines were SPARC only and the
x86 port was only a niche within the Solaris world.
Sun might sometimes do something stupid, but they are not *that* stupid ;-)
Benjamin
John D Groenveld
Benjamin Gawert <bga...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Sun might sometimes do something stupid, but they are not *that* stupid ;-)
Like spending $2B to merge with Stephen DeWitt's Cobalt Networks.
You don't need to worry about Sam Palmisano and company burrying you
when you have such genius MBAs running the company into the ground.
John
groe...@acm.org
YTC#1
> * YTC#1:
>
>>> You really think Sun would be so stupid to eliminate support for the
>>> only interface that runs optical media in their newer and current
>>> servers and workstations?
>>
>> Actually, yes.
>> This is the same company that once killed of Solaris on the x86
>> platform :-)
>
> Right, at a time when their own Solaris machines were SPARC only and the
> x86 port was only a niche within the Solaris world.
Because no one was listening that x86 was important......
>
> Sun might sometimes do something stupid, but they are not *that* stupid ;-)
Maybe I am tainted, but there are/were some stupid decisions made. And
now Sun no longer exists in its own right (when the EU get their
backsides into gear).
Benjamin Gawert
>> Right, at a time when their own Solaris machines were SPARC only and
>> the x86 port was only a niche within the Solaris world.
>
> Because no one was listening that x86 was important......
Sure, since Sun still believed that SPARC is the best thing since sliced
bread.
>> Sun might sometimes do something stupid, but they are not *that*
>> stupid ;-)
>
> Maybe I am tainted, but there are/were some stupid decisions made.
I never said Sun didn't make stupid decisions, in fact, they made quite
a lot. Besides other problems like completely incompetent sales
departments which made customers that have decided to buy turn away to
other vendors.
However, they didn't make their OS deliberately incompatible with all of
their own hardware as the OP suggested. Even Sun wouldn't do that.
Benjamin
YTC#1
> * YTC#1:
>
>>> Right, at a time when their own Solaris machines were SPARC only and
>>> the x86 port was only a niche within the Solaris world.
>>
>> Because no one was listening that x86 was important......
>
> Sure, since Sun still believed that SPARC is the best thing since sliced
> bread.
It still is, why do you thin Oracle have bought them ?
:-)
>
>>> Sun might sometimes do something stupid, but they are not *that*
>>> stupid ;-)
>>
>> Maybe I am tainted, but there are/were some stupid decisions made.
>
> I never said Sun didn't make stupid decisions, in fact, they made quite
> a lot. Besides other problems like completely incompetent sales
> departments which made customers that have decided to buy turn away to
> other vendors.
>
> However, they didn't make their OS deliberately incompatible with all of
> their own hardware as the OP suggested. Even Sun wouldn't do that.
Still time :-)
--
Bruce Porter
XJR1300SP, XJ900F, GSX750W, GSX250, Pegaso 650 Trail
POTM#1(KoTL), WUSS#1 , YTC#1(bar), OSOS#2(KoTL) , DS#3 , IbW#18 ,Apostle#8
Benjamin Gawert
>> Sure, since Sun still believed that SPARC is the best thing since
>> sliced bread.
>
> It still is, why do you thin Oracle have bought them ?
> :-)
Because Oracle is more interested in other assets like MySQL and their
customer base, I don't think Oracle will ever do hardware. Why else
would they discuss about selling the hardware business to HP (if HP
wants it, ofo course)? ;-)
>> However, they didn't make their OS deliberately incompatible with all
>> of their own hardware as the OP suggested. Even Sun wouldn't do that.
>
> Still time :-)
They could produce a "Taliban" version that some time after installation
blows up the whole file system structure. Oh wait, that was Linux with
Ext4 ;-)
Ben
shmerl
Benjamin Gawert
>> I don't think Oracle will ever do hardware.
>
> They claim that they will: http://tinyurl.com/yzvv9rf
I don't know what is behind the link (I don't click on short URLs, if it
is relevant please post the original URL) but I know that Oracle said
they will. Of course they say that, because if they didn't customers
would abandon the Sun platform and go elsewhere which means the value of
the hardware business would decrease.
However, there also is the (not unfounded) rumor that Oracle wants to
get rid of the hardware part, probably to HP. I would be extremely
surprised if Oracle would engage in the hardware business, something
which has been very complicated for Sun already. All they are probably
interested in is the service business and MySQL.
Benjamin
shmerl
I didn't make it a short URL. Probably your browser transforms long URLs
in short ones. Check your addons (may be disable them for a test). Link
it to the oracle official site.
Here is a quote:
> What are Oracle’s plans for SPARC?
> Oracle plans to spend more money developing SPARC than Sun does now.
> SPARC is the world volume leader for mission critical, highly scalable
> computing. Over the past decade, Sun’s investments in multi-thread
> and multi-core technologies have extended the proven pedigree of SPARC
> from scalability and reliability to include leadership in energy
> efficiency, a critical requirement for customers worldwide today. We
> plan to enhance our investment in the SPARC processor and in SPARC
> systems, combined with software engineering, to continue to create
> leadership in highly energy efficient, scalable, and mission critical
> systems.
Benjamin Gawert
> I didn't make it a short URL. Probably your browser transforms long URLs
> in short ones. Check your addons (may be disable them for a test). Link
> it to the oracle official site.
A browser is for viewing html pages only and not for newsreading, and my
newsreader certainly didn't make it a tinyurl:
"They claim that they will: http://tinyurl.com/yzvv9rf" definitely came
from your part, including the URL.
Benjamin
shmerl
I don't see my post as a tiny URL, but I see your quoute as such. So
it's for sure somewhere from your part :) May be it's your forum setting
or something. Forum engine can modify links I guess.
Here is a screenshot:
(I'm posting a FULL link here, following with a link without http
prefix, so whatever messes up links if it does, won't interfere in
second case).
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5936/tinyurlconverted.jpg
img17.imageshack.us/img17/5936/tinyurlconverted.jpg
YTC#1
> I don't see my post as a tiny URL, but I see your quoute as such. So
> it's for sure somewhere from your part :) May be it's your forum setting
> or something. Forum engine can modify links I guess.
Nope, its not at his end.
I, and probably others, saw it as well.
And note I *do not* use forums, I read via newsgroups where no
conversion takes place.
(fire up thunderbird, much easier to navigate than web forums)
>
> Here is a screenshot:
> (I'm posting a FULL link here, following with a link without http
> prefix, so whatever messes up links if it does, won't interfere in
> second case).
>
> http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5936/tinyurlconverted.jpg
>
> img17.imageshack.us/img17/5936/tinyurlconverted.jpg
>
>
I note from the screen shot you are using FF, could you perhaps have
this installed ?
http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Internet-Utilities/TinyUrl-Creator.shtml
shmerl
Nope. I don't have tiny url addons, and I don't like using tiny urls in
general. Try to load the forum using simple Lynx and without logging in.
You should see my URL as a normal address.
YTC#1
Must be the forum you posted through then.
Cydrome Leader
It was posted as a tinyurl. I check groups with tin, and what is posted is
what I see.
shmerl
YTC#1;1133322 Wrote:
> shmerl wrote:
> > Nope. I don't have tiny url addons, and I don't like using tiny urls
> in
> > general. Try to load the forum using simple Lynx and without logging
> in.
> > You should see my URL as a normal address.
> >
> >
>
> Must be the forum you posted through then.
>
Probably yes (when it propagates the post to e-mail). Try seeing it
through the forum itself:
Tristram Scott
Ha, very funny, another tinyurl.
Try seeing it through a news reader. Or even, if you must, through Google
groups:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.sys.sun.hardware/topics
The original comment still stands. The URL that ended up being propogated
through usenet is a tinyurl.
--
Dr Tristram J. Scott
Energy Consultant
YTC#1
Why would I want to ?
Forums are a bloated way of viewing newsgroups. And it is not
propagating to email. News is not email.