SunOS vs. Solaris
John Purser
relationship of SunOS to Solaris.
TIA
John
scriptOmatic
SunSO is the techie name,
Solaris the marketing name.
Some use SunOS to be 4.x
and Solaris to mean 5.x.
Anyway, take the uname -s output and subtract 3 to get the Solaris
version number.
And from 2.7 and above drop the 2!
SunOS 5.1 == Solaris 2.1
....
SunOS 5.6 == Solaris 2.6
SunOS 5.7 == Solaris 7
and so on
Hey, go figure!
--
http://ftp.opensysmon.com is a shell script archive site with an
opensource system monitoring software package designed for scripts
and fully compatible with cron.
Lance
news:l9pm9.65604$1C2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Solaris is the entire distribution, which includes all the applications that
come with it, like CDE, etc. SunOS is the base OS.
Lance
Andrew Tyson
> relationship of SunOS to Solaris.
As Lance mentioned Solaris is inclusive of the base OS - namely SunOS, and
additional S/W e.g. the windowing system CDE, OpenWindows ... etc.
Also SunOS 4.x/Solaris 1.x were BSD based UNIX variants, whereas SunOS
5.x/Solaris 2.x are SVR4 based.
Andrew
Rev. Don Kool
John Purser wrote:
> I think I'm running Solaris 8. uname says SunOS 5.8. What is the
> relationship of SunOS to Solaris.
Basically it boils down to just another way in which the people at SUN
are idiots. Despite SUN's best attempts to demonstrate their
incompetence, it is easy to figure out if you remember where SUN's
operating sysems were a while back so that you can follow the
progression. SUN used to have a BSD-ish operating system called SunOS
4.x. A few years ago, they moved from the BSD model to the System V
model and renamed the operating system SunOS 5.x. They also made an
asinine marketing move and decided to create this monstrocity called the
"SOLARIS Operating Environment". The SOLARIS OE includes the SunOS
operating system plus all the extras that go with it. Thus SunOS 4.x +
extras became SOLARIS 1.x while SunOS 5.x + extras became SOLARIS 5.x.
(And people still wonder why their stock price is in the crapper!)
The real tricky part was when SUN decided to induldge their penchant
for changing well known filenames, system names, etc. for no real
benefit and decided to drop the "2." after SOLARIS 2.6. Instead of
SOLARIS 2.7, they foisted SOLARIS 7 on the world. It was purely a
marketing move and one shamelessly designed to generate buzz for a
ho-hum product. (The fact that they could sould like Oracle 7 didn't
hurt either!).
Hope this helps,
Don
--
*********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
*********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
John Purser
"Rev. Don Kool" <old...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3D9A37C8...@comcast.net...
Thanks
Rev. Don Kool
John Purser wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@comcast.net> wrote...
>>John Purser wrote:
>>>I think I'm running Solaris 8. uname says SunOS 5.8. What is the
>>>relationship of SunOS to Solaris.
>>Basically it boils down to just another way in which the people at SUN
>>are idiots. Despite SUN's best attempts to demonstrate their
>>incompetence, it is easy to figure out if you remember where SUN's
>>operating sysems were a while back so that you can follow the
>>progression. SUN used to have a BSD-ish operating system called SunOS
>>4.x. A few years ago, they moved from the BSD model to the System V
>>model and renamed the operating system SunOS 5.x. They also made an
>>asinine marketing move and decided to create this monstrocity called the
>>"SOLARIS Operating Environment". The SOLARIS OE includes the SunOS
>>operating system plus all the extras that go with it. Thus SunOS 4.x +
>>extras became SOLARIS 1.x while SunOS 5.x + extras became SOLARIS 5.x.
>>(And people still wonder why their stock price is in the crapper!)
>>
>>The real tricky part was when SUN decided to induldge their penchant
>>for changing well known filenames, system names, etc. for no real
>>benefit and decided to drop the "2." after SOLARIS 2.6. Instead of
>>SOLARIS 2.7, they foisted SOLARIS 7 on the world. It was purely a
>>marketing move and one shamelessly designed to generate buzz for a
>>ho-hum product. (The fact that they could sould like Oracle 7 didn't
>>hurt either!).
> Yes, it all makes perfect sense now.
>
> Thanks
No problem. Glad to have cleared things up for you, my son.
Yours in Christ,
Matthew Kurowski
message news:3DAE04F8...@adcc.alcatel.be...
Solaris = (SUN OS + CDE + ONC plus)
SUN OS is the Operating System (Based on SVR4 Unix Operating System)
ONC Plus is the family of networking protocols and distributed services like
NFS, NIS, XFN and RPC
CDE is the desktop for the application development.
Sun OS is part of Solaris.
Best Regards,
Bala.
>>>>>>>>>>>...
annoying html... evil...
anyhow i believe sun tries to refer to solaris as Solaris Operating
Environment (SOE) wherever possible to minimize the confusion and to get the
point that bala made above across.
why did they start that? from the marketing tapes i listened to at the time,
i believe it was just a branding thing to distinguish themselves from univel
and others ("look we have a standards windowing environ, etc, ma!")
sunos 2.6 though with onc and openwindows would still be called sunos...
marketers... silly ppl
best,
matthew kurowski
kurowski.org/matthew
Alan Coopersmith
|sunos 2.6 though with onc and openwindows would still be called sunos...
There was no such beast. You are probably thinking of Solaris 2.6.
Sun has been using the Solaris name for over a decade now.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith al...@alum.calberkeley.org
http://www.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/ aka: Alan.Coo...@Sun.COM
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Matthew Kurowski
news:aon299$1hor$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
mea culpa... thinking sunos 5.6 actually... (typing issues or brain fry).
thanks! i hope he understood my point anyhow.
//--- unless you want to read rambling for a page, leave now! or forever
abstain from complaints or flames! ---
my point was "solaris" is to differentiate between the os and the package. a
way to make ppl unware say "how does solaris DIFFER from sunos?". i'll even
go on a limb and say solaris was an opportunity to reopen closed marketing
doors and draw attention to the "new" shiny sunos.
sun was trying to show value add through marketing by educating the channel
into using solaris/soe over sunos. at that time roughly, i remember arguing
how usl/univel would kick sun's arse (bad matthew, bad) because sun cared
more about hardware with it's base os then what they included or bundled
with it - that is, they had no interest in advancing *nix or it's tools and
their os advancements were limited to their expensive platforms... (yes i
was very immature and ignorant)
shortly thereafter i remember the marketing push in the channel more that
soe was much more than was just required to run their hardware - it was
about superlicious streams/tli... about rock solid rpc... about the
development tools... the stack, man!... the lower tco on admin... blah
blah... i vaguely remember some novell or perhaps univel jabs at the time...
calling something an os is confusing for some when it's not just that. look
at all the gits (me included) calling linux distros "linux" and not
linux/gnu even though without gnu utilities (linux without gcc for instance)
there might not even be a linux. it's marketing. linux = linux operating
environent = linolaris? (they'd probably get sued like lindows.com)...
sun could have made sunos stick and we could be at sunos6 or 7 or 2000 or
xplm or whatever instead of solaris 9 (sunos 5.8 is solaris 8 so i'm
guessing that they would've jumped to 6 or higher for marketing reasons).
sun's marketing of soe is also demonstrated by there jumping from solaris 7
to 8 to 9. why didn't they use solaris 3 after using solaris 2? marketing...
2.6 solaris to 7...
hope i don't sound agressive or defensive - i defintely respect all your
input and posts (god knows you have helped me indirectly enough), including
your accurate correction of mine above (i don't claim to be an expert on
everything by any means). just wanted to clarify my think on matters.
btw, i asked my sun rep who emailed sun who emailed back saying:
"I believe it [using the name solaris] was around 94'
They went from pure SUN OS to a combination of SUN OS and the AT&T
release of Unix....at that time they started using
the Marketing term "Solaris.""
so now that i've babbled and wasted bandwidth on the internet for no real
good reason at all... does anyone know the EXACT date (month/year) sun
switched to solaris with a released product and/or in preliminary channels?
if you're right alan it should be around 91/92. perhaps it was even
earlier - perhaps a code name that stuck with the release? heck i love the
name solaris atually - if anyone cares to respond to this last query maybe
they can answer where solaris came from? i'd be impressed if it was an
inhouse decision as opposed to outside marketing firm or developers
conference or something similar...
cheers,
matthew kurowski
kurowski.org/matthew
Goran Larsson
Matthew Kurowski <matthew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> btw, i asked my sun rep who emailed sun who emailed back saying:
>
> "I believe it [using the name solaris] was around 94'
The copyright date for Solaris 1.1.2 is November 1994 but the
Solaris name must have been decided upon long before 1994.
I was involved in a project in 1989 (using Sun 386i systems
running some SunOS 4.0 release) designing an instructors station
for a powerplant simulator. We called this system Solaris
(Sun -> SOL + Instructor Station -> IS = SOLarIS) and thought it
was quite amusing when a Sun representative told us that Sun was
going to use Solaris themselves for their future releases.
--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com
Matthew Kurowski
news:H4GD...@approve.se...
wow that's awesome! very interesting how things like that happen.
perhaps it was slated to be from sun's inception... at the very least we now
know -thanks to mr Larsson - before 89.
my guess is -- ...from inception of sun (possibly in it's formative stages)
but perhaps not alluded to until 87 4Q... for no particular reason. (my
chicago bears have lost the last 4 games so i'm obviously not a good
prognosticator!)
i should start an office pool... ;-)
best,
matthew kurowski
kurowski.org/matthew
Alan Coopersmith
|good reason at all... does anyone know the EXACT date (month/year) sun
|switched to solaris with a released product and/or in preliminary channels?
|if you're right alan it should be around 91/92. perhaps it was even
|earlier - perhaps a code name that stuck with the release?
Here are the earliest references I found in a quick google search:
September 1991:
http://sunsite.lanet.lv/ftp/sun-info/sunflash/1991/Sep/33.01.solaris
SAN JOSE, Calif., --Sept. 4, 1991-- SunSoft, the system software
subsidiary of Sun Microsystems, Inc., today raised the bar in the
software market with its introduction of Solaris(TM), the industry's
first "shrink-wrapped" distributed computing environment available in
volume on a compact disc. Solaris will be available on the computing
industry's highest-volume multivendor platforms, SPARC(R)-based RISC
systems and Intel 80386/486-based personal computers.
[...]
SunSoft offers two versions of Solaris. Solaris 1.0 is based on SunOS
4.1.1, OpenWindows Version 2 and DeskSet(TM) Version 2. It is available
immediately for all SPARC vendors in a shrink-wrapped package that
includes a compact disc and documentation. Solaris 1.0 is available
through SunSoft and major computer system manufacturers worldwide.
Solaris 2.0 is based on SunSoft's latest SVR4-based SunOS 5.0 with
symmetric multiprocessing and multithreading, and enhanced ONC. It
features OpenWindows Version 3 and DeskSet Version 3. Solaris 2.0 is
offered on the SPARC and Intel platforms. It maintains source
compatibility with Solaris 1.0, providing a smooth migration path for
software developers to SVR4. Developer copies of Solaris 2.0 on SPARC
are available immediately through SunSoft. An early access release of
Solaris for the SPARC and Intel platforms will be available in early
1992. Solaris 2.0 will be shipped in volume for both platforms in the
first half of 1992. Pricing will be announced at that time.
Also:
http://sunsite.lanet.lv/ftp/sun-info/sunflash/1991/Sep/33.26.interactive
(SunSoft To Acquire INTERACTIVE Intel-Software Division Of Kodak to
assist in developing the Intel version of Solaris(TM) 2.0)
http://sunsite.lanet.lv/ftp/sun-info/sunflash/1991/Nov/35.12.solaris
Paul Eggert
> "Matthew Kurowski" <matthew...@hotmail.com> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
> |does anyone know the EXACT date (month/year) sun
> |switched to solaris with a released product and/or in preliminary channels?
>
> Here are the earliest references I found in a quick google search:
>
> September 1991:
> http://sunsite.lanet.lv/ftp/sun-info/sunflash/1991/Sep/33.01.solaris
They may have announced it in 1991, but they didn't ship Solaris 2.0
FCS until very late June or early July, 1992. I first booted Solaris
2.0 FCS on my home machine on July 28, 1992, and I was a quite early
adopter.
My wife has never really forgiven me for upgrading the home machine to
Solaris 2.0, as our expensively licensed copy of WordPerfect 5.0
refused to run on Solaris 2.0, even though it ran quite nicely on
Solaris 1.0.1 / SunOS 4.1.2. When you're on the bleeding edge, forget
about all those promises about backward compatibility....
Matthew Kurowski
news:7wr8egv...@sic.twinsun.com...
> They may have announced it in 1991, but they didn't ship Solaris 2.0
> FCS until very late June or early July, 1992. I first booted Solaris
> 2.0 FCS on my home machine on July 28, 1992, and I was a quite early
> adopter.
>
> My wife has never really forgiven me for upgrading the home machine to
> Solaris 2.0, as our expensively licensed copy of WordPerfect 5.0
> refused to run on Solaris 2.0, even though it ran quite nicely on
> Solaris 1.0.1 / SunOS 4.1.2. When you're on the bleeding edge, forget
> about all those promises about backward compatibility....
that's great. talk about narrowing things down... glad i didn't _really_
start an office pool - i was off by a mile from my last posting. i did put
in a disclaimer, however ;-)
if we get no more replies, i'd be happy here. i can add this to my solaris
trivia and eventually add this to my extremely-lame-beggin-for-an-update
public website... my wife can't think me any _more_ of a geek for finding
this print-worthy. (i am surprised sun doesn't make this easy to find on
their website.)
...wordperfect 5! woohoo! my wife is my most critical end-user (in all
meanings of the word)... i can't touch her systems unless i can assure her
beyond any doubt that i have backups, clones, and a remotely transmatted
copy somewhere - all for that same "wordperfect" type incident...
thanks again guys
matthew kurowski
kurowski.org/matthew
Anthony Mandic
> if we get no more replies, i'd be happy here. i can add this to my solaris
> trivia and eventually add this to my extremely-lame-beggin-for-an-update
> public website... my wife can't think me any _more_ of a geek for finding
> this print-worthy. (i am surprised sun doesn't make this easy to find on
> their website.)
Around that time period Sun also released a very big black
plastic case with a single CD inside it. It features some
AV files you could run on your SunOS desktop and listen
to Scott and co. extol the virtues of Solaris.
> ...wordperfect 5! woohoo! my wife is my most critical end-user (in all
> meanings of the word)... i can't touch her systems unless i can assure her
> beyond any doubt that i have backups, clones, and a remotely transmatted
> copy somewhere - all for that same "wordperfect" type incident...
So she wants you to have protection before you can touch
her systems?
-am © 2002