Best Linux distro for Sparc?
Bill Crocker
might be the preferred distribution?
Thanks,
Bill Crocker
I R A Darth Aggie
Bill Crocker <billc...@ameritech.net>, in
<hMKk8.10743$k5.40...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
+> If one were to choose to run Linux, vs. Solaris, on a Sparc Ultra10, what
+> might be the preferred distribution?
Ummmm...Solaris? otherwise, Debian or perhaps SuSe. Perhaps one of the
BSD's would suit you?
And yes, I'm serious. What does linux or BSD buy you that Solaris
can't? I could see avoiding Solaris if you had, say a SS1 with 48mb of
memory and your choices where Solaris 8 and Linux.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
Rich Teer
> If one were to choose to run Linux, vs. Solaris, on a Sparc Ultra10, what
> might be the preferred distribution?
Anyone sane WOULDN'T choose Linux over Solaris on that hardware,
therefor the question doesn't make sense. (If you want Linux,
stick with PeeCee hardware.)
The prefered "distribution" is Solaris 8.
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
Rich Teer
> can't? I could see avoiding Solaris if you had, say a SS1 with 48mb of
> memory and your choices where Solaris 8 and Linux.
But only because Solaris 8 won't run onan SS1. :-)
I R A Darth Aggie
Rich Teer <ri...@rite-group.com>, in
<Pine.GSO.4.44.02031...@grover.rite-group.com> wrote:
+> On 16 Mar 2002, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+>
+> > can't? I could see avoiding Solaris if you had, say a SS1 with 48mb of
+> > memory and your choices where Solaris 8 and Linux.
+>
+> But only because Solaris 8 won't run onan SS1. :-)
Right. :) and to think I had operational SS1's 18 months ago...
John
"Bill Crocker" <billc...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:hMKk8.10743$k5.40...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> If one were to choose to run Linux, vs. Solaris, on a Sparc Ultra10, what
> might be the preferred distribution?
Debian is your best bet, Sun will have their own distribution out within the next 6
months but Debian is best for now.
Rich Teer
> Debian is your best bet, Sun will have their own distribution out within the next 6
Not for SPARC. Sun's Linux will be x86 only.
Derek Konigsberg
> the next 6 months but Debian is best for now.
I'd have to agree. I have a toy SPARCstation 10 here (got it from someone
who found it discarded) and wanted to test it before I could get ahold of a
copy of Solaris 2.6 (it has a ZX framebuffer, so Sol 8 wouldn't fly). So,
for about a week I ran Debian Linux on it. I was actually quite impressed.
Sparc Linux uses the framebuffer for console just like it can on x86, so
the text console looks cool. Also, X worked just fine. Overall, a nice
setup.
-Derek
Mioluil Rupor
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, John wrote:
>
> > Debian is your best bet, Sun will have their own distribution out within the next 6
>
> Not for SPARC. Sun's Linux will be x86 only.
This already creates confusion just before Sun will ship any!
I can imagine the volume of customer’s questions about Linux on SPARC
to marketing and to support.
M.R.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> If one were to choose to run Linux, vs. Solaris, on a Sparc Ultra10, what
> might be the preferred distribution?
NetBSD of course!
Really, it's faster than Linux, and Linux still doesn't do SPARC as well
as it does other architectures.
But if you do it anyway, I personally find Slackware to be more reliable
and simple than things like Red Hat or Debian. Everyone on Earth that
uses Linux will likely have a different opinion of course.
dev...@sdf.lonestar.org
>
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 00:34:00 GMT,
> Rich Teer <ri...@rite-group.com>, in
> <Pine.GSO.4.44.02031...@grover.rite-group.com> wrote:
> +> On 16 Mar 2002, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
> +>
> +> > can't? I could see avoiding Solaris if you had, say a SS1 with 48mb of
> +> > memory and your choices where Solaris 8 and Linux.
> +>
> +> But only because Solaris 8 won't run onan SS1. :-)
>
> Right. :) and to think I had operational SS1's 18 months ago...
>
> James
And to think I know of somewhere where a 3/260 is still being used as a
mailserver, to this day :)
root
Lee
John
"root" <ro...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ua5ait6...@corp.supernews.com...
Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating their own
Linux distribution. Assuming they don't make a mess of it, like they did with
solaris, it should quickly establish itself as the defacto OS on Sun hardware.
Rich Teer
> Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating their own
> Linux distribution. Assuming they don't make a mess of it, like they did with
> solaris, it should quickly establish itself as the defacto OS on Sun hardware.
You really are a clueless moron, aren't you? Be gone, troll!
Akop Pogosian
Bah, who told that they're working on a Linux for SPARC distribution
and why would they any anyways? Stop inventing the facts.
-akop
John
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, John wrote:
>
> > Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating their
own
> > Linux distribution. Assuming they don't make a mess of it, like they did
with
> > solaris, it should quickly establish itself as the defacto OS on Sun
hardware.
>
> You really are a clueless moron, aren't you? Be gone, troll!
The sound of margins getting tighter :)
John
"Akop Pogosian" <akopps...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:a80098$239g$2...@agate.berkeley.edu...
It's well known Sun will have their own dist. soon. Why ? because their
customers demand it.
Steve Kearney
>> and why would they any anyways? Stop inventing the facts.
>
>It's well known Sun will have their own dist. soon. Why ? because their
>customers demand it.
Since when have Sun ever listened to their customers?
Steve
Akop Pogosian
No, it is not well known and their customers are not demanding it.
Why would -you- demand it? Why would anyone demand it when Solaris
works just fine? Why would anyone want to replace a stable, proven
platform that has excellent application support with a less stable,
un-proven platform with no application support and no installed user
base? If you haven't learned yet, Solaris is Sun's main assent, not
SPARC. Solaris and its applications is why people buy Sparc systems.
No one would want to buy a SPARC system with Linux when you get get a
faster, cheaper, and better supported x86 Linux box around the corner.
The only use for Linux on sparc is for playing with it on cheap Sun
gear that you pick up at ebay. I don't see why anyone would want to
use Linux/SPARC in production. Look, Linux has not succeeded on
non-intel platforms, not even on the ones where vendor was actively
pushing Linux on their HW (compaq). Please post a reference next time
instead of inventing facts to support your points.
--
Akop Pogosian
This space has been accidentally left blank.
Rich Teer
> It's well known Sun will have their own dist. soon. Why ? because their
> customers demand it.
Sun's customers demand a stable, secure, mature, scalable
operating system. That doesn't sound like Linux to me.
I R A Darth Aggie
John <mr_ben...@yahoo.co.uk>, in
<tgLo8.5735$RE4.40...@news-text.cableinet.net> wrote:
+> Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating their own
+> Linux distribution.
I doubt that. How expensive can it be?
Joe Bloggs
"I R A Darth Aggie" <sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz> wrote in message
news:slrnaa76b7....@gurcragntba.pbz...
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:44:09 GMT,
> John <mr_ben...@yahoo.co.uk>, in
> <tgLo8.5735$RE4.40...@news-text.cableinet.net> wrote:
>
> +> Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating
their own
> +> Linux distribution.
>
> I doubt that. How expensive can it be?
>
> James
Ask Red Hat. They've spent about $6m on R&D each quarter for the past year
or so.
Drazen Kacar
> Why would -you- demand it? Why would anyone demand it when Solaris
> works just fine? Why would anyone want to replace a stable, proven
> platform that has excellent application support with a less stable,
> un-proven platform with no application support and no installed user
> base?
Because one would get the source for things like kernel and X server, so
one might be able to develop something in that space.
--
.-. .-. I don't work here. I'm a consultant.
(_ \ / _)
| da...@willfork.com
|
I R A Darth Aggie
John <mr_ben...@yahoo.co.uk>, in
<pVLo8.5783$WB4.40...@news-text.cableinet.net> wrote:
+>
+> "Akop Pogosian" <akopps...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
+> news:a80098$239g$2...@agate.berkeley.edu...
+> > In comp.unix.solaris John <mr_ben...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
+> >
+> > > "root" <ro...@charter.net> wrote in message
+> > > news:ua5ait6...@corp.supernews.com...
+> > >> In article <a73gpv$1ghc$1...@newsfeeds.rpi.edu>,
+> > >> Derek Konigsberg <oc...@logicprobe.org> writes:
+> > >> >> Debian is your best bet, Sun will have their own distribution out
+> within
+> > >> >> the next 6 months but Debian is best for now.
+> > >> >
+> > >> > I'd have to agree. I have a toy SPARCstation 10 here (got it from
+> someone
+> > >> > who found it discarded) and wanted to test it before I could get ahold
+> of
+> > > a
+> > >> > copy of Solaris 2.6 (it has a ZX framebuffer, so Sol 8 wouldn't fly).
+> So,
+> > >> > for about a week I ran Debian Linux on it. I was actually quite
+> > > impressed.
+> > >> > Sparc Linux uses the framebuffer for console just like it can on x86,
+> so
+> > >> > the text console looks cool. Also, X worked just fine. Overall, a
+> nice
+> > >> > setup.
+> > >> >
+> > >> > -Derek
+> > >> >
+> > >> I have several sparcs running RedHat 6.2 that are doing fine. RedHat is
+> no
+> > > longer supporting sparc though. Suse 7.3 looks good but seems to do
+> > > everything more slowly.
+> >
+> > > Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating their
+> own
+> > > Linux distribution. Assuming they don't make a mess of it, like they did
+> with
+> > > solaris, it should quickly establish itself as the defacto OS on Sun
+> hardware.
+> >
+> >
+> > Bah, who told that they're working on a Linux for SPARC distribution
+> > and why would they any anyways? Stop inventing the facts.
+>
+> It's well known Sun will have their own dist. soon. Why ? because their
+> customers demand it.
On _intel_ hardware. Are you an astroturfer for Microsquid?
Lance
anything, let alone a SPARC.
My view on Linux is that it is a fad. It was built around the x86
architecture, which if Intel has it's way will be gone before decades end.
There are too many incompatible distributions of Linux. For an open source
platform, each vendor is trying to customize it for themselves only. There
are a few packages that will only run on one distribution of Linux. The
kernel is constantly being updated and new packages have known to only work
on recent kernels. In the Linux community would get together and work
towards a common goal, then things would turn out differently. As it is
now, they only are looking out for themselves.
You could say some of the same things about Solaris though. Some new
packages only work with more recent version of Solaris, and 2.5 and 2.6 are
not usually supported. It definitely sure beats having to upgrade the
kernel on Linux every few months. Compared with Solaris that it supported
by apps many years later. Solaris only focuses on two platforms, not many
like Linux.
Why IBM has moved to Linux is beyond me. As Linux is not designed for the
hardware, there are too many problems using it. It may sound good on paper,
but in the real world, I wonder how many companies regret using Linux on the
IBM's. IBM has put all of this money into R&D to support it on their
platforms so that they could reduce the cost of their systems. Why not just
give their OS away for free like Solaris does? Or at least substantially
reduce the cost. The OS licensing fees are outrageous. That is where a
good chunk of the system cost is. So now IBM has to support an additional
OS. Who is the one paying for it, the users of their other OS. If more and
more companies use Linux on the IBM, IBM will have to redo their entire
pricing strategy. Current users won't pay more for the licensing costs of
AIX, etc. and the Linux equipment prices will go up and be comparable.
Sun knows that the money is in the equipment and not the OS. Why do you
think that Solaris is free? At least for systems under 8 CPU's.
Lance
John D Groenveld
I R A Darth Aggie <no-courtesy-copies-please> wrote:
>I doubt that. How expensive can it be?
invest enough R&D to convince customers that they should
buy yours over Dell's or IBMs.
If you're not serious about it, then you need to tell your
stockholders its just a cheap marketing ploy to appease "industry
analysts" @ Giga and not to expect any sales.
John
groe...@acm.org
John D Groenveld
Lance <m...@me.com> wrote:
>You could say some of the same things about Solaris though. Some new
>packages only work with more recent version of Solaris, and 2.5 and 2.6 are
>not usually supported. It definitely sure beats having to upgrade the
Binary packages developed under Solaris 2.5 run under Solaris 8 with
few caveats. My understanding is that Linux community doesn't pay
binary compatibility much heed.
John
groe...@acm.org
Akop Pogosian
Not only binary packages but also often even various loadable kernel
modules (as long as the kernel and the driver are both 32-bit or
64-bit). Try to use a binary Linux kernel module from Linux 2.4.X on
Linux 2.4.X+1. Usually, it is problematic. Re-using modules from 2.2.x
and 2.0.x kernels is even less likely. This also makes the life harder
for users and developers. If your binary-only software requires to
load a kernel module that means that you will have to provide dozens
of modules compiled and tested on a number of Linux distributions (and
make sure to recompile it every time, say, RedHat release a new kernel
update). This also pisses off the users who end-up locked with the
distributions and kernel versions that the software vendor chose
support. Some vendors started providing source to their kernel
modules, though, so that you could compile them yourself.
As for binary packages, it is not very bad. On many systems, pretty
much everything in my /usr/local worked when upgrading from 2.0 to 2.2
and from 2.2 to 2.4. Changes in libc were more painful but after glibc
2.0, GNU libc developers promised that there won't be such drastic
breakages in future any more.
I R A Darth Aggie
Joe Bloggs <joebl...@hotmail.com>, in
<a8060v$14u$1...@helle.btinternet.com> wrote:
+>
+> "I R A Darth Aggie" <sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz> wrote in message
+> news:slrnaa76b7....@gurcragntba.pbz...
+> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:44:09 GMT,
+> > John <mr_ben...@yahoo.co.uk>, in
+> > <tgLo8.5735$RE4.40...@news-text.cableinet.net> wrote:
+> >
+> > +> Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating
+> their own
+> > +> Linux distribution.
+> >
+> > I doubt that. How expensive can it be?
+> Ask Red Hat. They've spent about $6m on R&D each quarter for the past year
+> or so.
Now compare that cost to Debian...
Akop Pogosian
I doubt Sun's customers demand Linux on x86 from Sun either. They
simply go out and buy it from some other established Linux vendor like
IBM. Sun management figured they'll be able to lure them by
introducing their own Linux/x86 box. Though, I wish they'd investigate
why those customers are switching in the first place and tried to
address their needs with Solaris/Sparc offerings.
Lance
market share. Right now, the offerings for the SPARC platform are rather
slim. The offerings are slim for PCI cards that are compatible, and the
that are cost too much. Just look at the PGX64 PCI video card. Sun will
sell it to you for $300. Many resellers would charge between 150 and 200
for it. If you look at the specs on the card, it has the same amount of
memory and chip set as an off the shelf card from ATI that can be bought at
staples for $40.00 It is hard to justify the cost difference. Hopefully
infiband will offer some type of open boot support, then the manufactures
for these cards can be pressured into writing drivers. As it is now, they
can argue that their products are not compatible so they can't write drivers
for it.
Lance
Philip Brown
>
>Because one would get the source for things like kernel and X server, so
>one might be able to develop something in that space.
you can already develop something in "that space". apart from X server
issues, that is. I'm banging on a few doors right now though, so hopefully
that will change soon.
--
*** http://www.bolthole.com/resume.html ***
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
S.1618 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
http://www.spamlaws.com/state/ca1.html
Philip Brown
>
>Binary packages developed under Solaris 2.5 run under Solaris 8 with
>few caveats.
binary packages developed under Solaris **2.1** run under Solaris 8 with
few caveats.
--
Joerg Schilling
Philip Brown <phi...@bolthole.no-bots.com> wrote:
>On 28 Mar 2002 18:22:00 -0500, groe...@cse.psu.edu wrote:
>>
>>Binary packages developed under Solaris 2.5 run under Solaris 8 with
>>few caveats.
>
>binary packages developed under Solaris **2.1** run under Solaris 8 with
>few caveats.
Kernel drivers develped under Solaris-2.3 (while honoring the documentation)
will work on Solaris 9 if you run a 32 bit kernel.
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schi...@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
Chris Newport
>
>
> +> Ask Red Hat. They've spent about $6m on R&D each quarter for the past year
> +> or so.
>
> Now compare that cost to Debian...
Or to the 3 people currently working on Splack, and still producing
a more useable product than some ......
I R A Darth Aggie
Chris Newport <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com>, in
<3CA44D43...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
+> I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+> >
+> > +> Ask Red Hat. They've spent about $6m on R&D each quarter for the past year
+> > +> or so.
+> >
+> > Now compare that cost to Debian...
+>
+> Or to the 3 people currently working on Splack, and still producing
+> a more useable product than some ......
Slack for sparc! Cool.
Paul Booth
> Since when have Sun ever listened to their customers?
Funny, of all the tech companies I've ever dealt with, the only company
that has invited me to come and visit their facilities, play around with
test kit, listened to my opinions and acted on them has been... Sun.
Paul.
Dimitri Maziuk
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:38:23 +0000 (UTC),
> Joe Bloggs <joebl...@hotmail.com>, in
><a8060v$14u$1...@helle.btinternet.com> wrote:
> +>
> +> "I R A Darth Aggie" <sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz> wrote in message
> +> news:slrnaa76b7....@gurcragntba.pbz...
> +> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:44:09 GMT,
> +> > John <mr_ben...@yahoo.co.uk>, in
> +> > <tgLo8.5735$RE4.40...@news-text.cableinet.net> wrote:
> +> >
> +> > +> Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating
> +> their own
> +> > +> Linux distribution.
> +> >
> +> > I doubt that. How expensive can it be?
>
> +> Ask Red Hat. They've spent about $6m on R&D each quarter for the past year
> +> or so.
>
> Now compare that cost to Debian...
Now look at the date of the last Debian release.
Dima
--
Q276304 - Error Message: Your Password Must Be at Least 18770 Characters
and Cannot Repeat Any of Your Previous 30689 Passwords -- RISKS 21.37
I R A Darth Aggie
Dimitri Maziuk <di...@127.0.0.1>, in
<slrnaa9ed...@odyssey.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
+> begin 666 I R A Darth Aggie:
+> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:38:23 +0000 (UTC),
+> > Joe Bloggs <joebl...@hotmail.com>, in
+> ><a8060v$14u$1...@helle.btinternet.com> wrote:
+> > +>
+> > +> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:44:09 GMT,
+> > +> > John <mr_ben...@yahoo.co.uk>, in
+> > +> > <tgLo8.5735$RE4.40...@news-text.cableinet.net> wrote:
+> > +> >
+> > +> > +> Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating
+> > +> > +> Linux distribution.
+> > +> >
+> > +> > I doubt that. How expensive can it be?
+> >
+> > +> or so.
+> >
+>
+> Now look at the date of the last Debian release.
This morning? Hold on...I'm updating now.
If this helps, think of Potato as Solaris 2.6...
Dimitri Maziuk
My point exactly: Potato is the *current* release, and it's like
Solaris 2.6 -- not much wrong with it except most of the software
has been obsolete for a few years.
Dima
--
I have not been able to think of any way of describing Perl to [person]
"Hello, blind man? This is color." -- DPM
I R A Darth Aggie
+> > Dimitri Maziuk <di...@127.0.0.1>, in
+> ><slrnaa9ed...@odyssey.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
+> > +> begin 666 I R A Darth Aggie:
+> > +> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:38:23 +0000 (UTC),
+> > +> > Joe Bloggs <joebl...@hotmail.com>, in
+> > +> ><a8060v$14u$1...@helle.btinternet.com> wrote:
+> > +> > +>
+> > +> > +> "I R A Darth Aggie" <sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz> wrote in message
+> > +> > +> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:44:09 GMT,
+> > +> > +> > John <mr_ben...@yahoo.co.uk>, in
+> > +> > +> > <tgLo8.5735$RE4.40...@news-text.cableinet.net> wrote:
+> > +> > +> >
+> > +> > +> > +> Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating
+> > +> > +> > +> Linux distribution.
+> > +> > +> >
+> > +> > +> > I doubt that. How expensive can it be?
+> > +> >
+> > +> > +> Ask Red Hat. They've spent about $6m on R&D each quarter for the past year
+> > +> >
+> > +> > Now compare that cost to Debian...
+> > +>
+> > +> Now look at the date of the last Debian release.
+> > This morning? Hold on...I'm updating now.
+> >
+> > If this helps, think of Potato as Solaris 2.6...
+>
+> My point exactly: Potato is the *current* release, and it's like
+> Solaris 2.6 -- not much wrong with it except most of the software
+> has been obsolete for a few years.
Oh, you're frightened by the tags "testing" (Woody) and "unstable"
(sid). You don't have to be. Woody is quite acceptable.
Bob Palowoda
Heh they toke the IRS to the cleaners on this one considering Linux
is developed by others on their own time.
---Bob
Ryan Graham
joebl...@hotmail.com wrote on 3/28/02 3:38 PM:
$6m for R&D is nothing for Sun, their R&D budget for 2001 was $1.9 BILLION.
Chris Newport
>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:17:23 +0000,
> Chris Newport <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com>, in
> <3CA44D43...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
> +> I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
> +> >
> +> >
> +> > +> Ask Red Hat. They've spent about $6m on R&D each quarter for the past year
> +> > +> or so.
> +> >
> +> > Now compare that cost to Debian...
> +>
> +> Or to the 3 people currently working on Splack, and still producing
> +> a more useable product than some ......
>
> Slack for sparc! Cool.
Thanks.
Ob shameless plug: http://www.splack.org/
Dimitri Maziuk
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:08:58 +0000 (UTC),
> Dimitri Maziuk <di...@127.0.0.1>, in
><slrnaa9lv...@odyssey.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
> +> begin 666 I R A Darth Aggie:
> +> >
> +>
> +> My point exactly: Potato is the *current* release, and it's like
> +> Solaris 2.6 -- not much wrong with it except most of the software
> +> has been obsolete for a few years.
>
> Oh, you're frightened by the tags "testing" (Woody) and "unstable"
...for your own personal workstaion nobody else cares about.
Hint: check out "official" statements WRT woody's stability
and security updates. Hint #2: I switched from slack to deb
at 0.96R3, or whatever it was called; I've enough experience
with Debian to not be frightened and to know what I'm talking
about. Hint #3: read debian-devel archives and see what
developers have to say Debian's scalability. Hint #4: try
installing e.g. apache and analog, see what extra crud they
pull in and think of the usual securiy practice of not
insalling sofware you don't need on a net-facing server.
Hint #5: well, you get the drift.
This is [anti-] advocacy, so I'll shut up after this:
with all its flaws Debian is still the best Linux distro
I know. Whether you interpret this as "Debian is great" or
as "Linux is crap" is entirely up to you.
AFAICT Great Free Software Projects(tm) work only when there
is a (benevolent) dictator like Linus who's not afraid to drop
crappy code into the bit bucket and has enough clue to recognize
crappy code when he sees it. Without that, you get fishes
suddently swimming across your desktop (happy Easter everybody),
C compiler that isn't standards-compliant (but has ke3wl feechorz
(except for really useful ones)), tarballs that aren't compatible
with other tar's and Makefiles that aren't compatible with other
make's.
So yeah, "they" don't spend millions of $s on R&D. Most of the
time "their" code doesn't even compile on !gcc/Linux. That's the
development model Sun should embrace and extend, fersure. (Not
that, say, RH who (allegedly) spends millions on R&D is any better:
*their* code usually doesn't compile even on $RH_VERSION + 1).
Dima (bitter? moi?)
--
I like the US government, makes the Aussie one look less dumb and THAT is a
pretty big effort. -- Craig Small
Philip Brown
>
>$6m for R&D is nothing for Sun, their R&D budget for 2001 was $1.9 BILLION.
and their profit last quarter was how much?
Mark A. Waddell
news:slrnaad56v....@bolthole.com...
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:44:54 -0700, rgr...@RqEwMeOsVtE.net wrote:
> >
> >$6m for R&D is nothing for Sun, their R&D budget for 2001 was $1.9
BILLION.
>
> and their profit last quarter was how much?
>
RHAT - eps -0.73 (last Quarter) Red Hat has NEVER had a quarter where it
EARNER money!
Paul Eggert
> Ask Red Hat. They've spent about $6m on R&D each quarter for the past year
> or so.
Not last quarter. Red Hat cut R&D way, way back, to under $0.5
million. That's about a 90% cut.
In contrast, Sun cut back about 10%, from $476 million to $428 million.
Not that the quarter-to-quarter numbers are all that reliable. But
it's conceivable that Sun is now spending more R&D dollars than Red
Hat on GNU/Linux-related software and hardware. Scary, huh?
Reinier Post
>I agree 100% with you, I'm a SUN customer and have will not run Linux on
>anything, let alone a SPARC.
You have the right not to try alternatives. Linux on SPARC makes sense,
e.g. for "cheap stuff you pivk up on eBay" as the previous poster said.
>My view on Linux is that it is a fad. It was built around the x86
>architecture, which if Intel has it's way will be gone before decades end.
That is why you prefer a Unix variant build around the SPARC architecture?
>There are too many incompatible distributions of Linux.
?? Pick one.
>For an open source
>platform, each vendor is trying to customize it for themselves only. There
>are a few packages that will only run on one distribution of Linux.
As opposed to how many that will not run on Solaris?
>The kernel is constantly being updated and new packages have known to only work
>on recent kernels. In the Linux community would get together and work
>towards a common goal, then things would turn out differently. As it is
>now, they only are looking out for themselves.
>
>You could say some of the same things about Solaris though.
Except that with Solaris the situation is a 1000 times worse.
>Some new
>packages only work with more recent version of Solaris, and 2.5 and 2.6 are
>not usually supported. It definitely sure beats having to upgrade the
>kernel on Linux every few months.
Do you mean you don't apply Solaris patches when they touch the kernel?
What logic is behind that?
>Compared with Solaris that it supported
>by apps many years later. Solaris only focuses on two platforms, not many
>like Linux.
You suggest that this comes at a cost to the quality of support
for a specific platform. I can just as well argue the opposite.
>Why IBM has moved to Linux is beyond me. As Linux is not designed for the
>hardware, there are too many problems using it.
Such as?
One reason: IBM needs to support its hardware. Moving to Linux
allows them to concentrate on the (guess) 1% of code that is actually
hardware specific, and share the effort of developing the remaining 99%
of the OS distribution with the rest of the Linux developer community.
Users are more familiar with Linux, too; they no longer use AIX or
Solaris as their first Unix variant.
>It may sound good on paper,
>but in the real world, I wonder how many companies regret using Linux on the
>IBM's. IBM has put all of this money into R&D to support it on their
>platforms so that they could reduce the cost of their systems. Why not just
>give their OS away for free like Solaris does?
Because it doesn't help. Compared to Linux, nobody uses Solaris,
so you're only going to get a very small share of shared development
compared to what you can get for Linux.
>Or at least substantially
>reduce the cost. The OS licensing fees are outrageous. That is where a
>good chunk of the system cost is. So now IBM has to support an additional
>OS.
At a substantially lower development cost.
>Lance
--
Reinier
Reinier Post
>In article <a89mh0$gtn$1...@news.tue.nl>, r...@win.tue.nl (Reinier Post) writes:
>
>[66 lines snipped]
>
>>Because it doesn't help. Compared to Linux, nobody uses Solaris,
>
>Bwahahahahahahahahahaha. The "eat shit, 60,000,000 flies can't be wrong"
>argument.
>
>Retail "sales" are completely irrelevant in this argument. We're talking
>"big iron" here, and Linux's penetration in that market is negligible.
Actually, I was talking "cheap stuff you pick up on eBay".
--
Reinier
Reinier Post
>Captains Log Star Date 1 Apr 2002 13:15:12 GMT,alien life
>r...@win.tue.nl (Reinier Post) contacted us and said:
>
>>"Lance" <m...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>snip
>
>>Because it doesn't help. Compared to Linux, nobody uses Solaris,
>>so you're only going to get a very small share of shared development
>>compared to what you can get for Linux.
>>
>What are you smoking?
>
>Perhaps for firewalls and webservers, then Linux is making waves, and
>perhaps if you want to compare linux on the desktop with Solaris, then
>again perhaps.
>
>In the server room, of lots of companies, not a lot of linux going
>on..
So how much of Solaris is specific to running
in the server room? Mostly stuff in the kernel.
How much code is that, compared to the total?
Did you read my posting at all?
--
Reinier
Christopher L. Estep
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:53:33 GMT,
> Bill Crocker <billc...@ameritech.net>, in
> <hMKk8.10743$k5.40...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
> +> If one were to choose to run Linux, vs. Solaris, on a Sparc Ultra10, what
> +> might be the preferred distribution?
>
> Ummmm...Solaris? otherwise, Debian or perhaps SuSe. Perhaps one of the
> BSD's would suit you?
>
> And yes, I'm serious. What does linux or BSD buy you that Solaris
> can't? I could see avoiding Solaris if you had, say a SS1 with 48mb of
> memory and your choices where Solaris 8 and Linux.
>
Uhhh...applications?
While there is growing application support for Solaris (not just on SPARC, but
even IA-32), Solaris loses (and loses large) to Linux on the application front.
As someone who has added Solaris to his OS arsenal (same PC as the XP/RH
dual-boot box, but a completely separate hard drive, and a nominally *slower*
one, but don't tell Solaris that), and from spending some time with a properly
set-up Solaris 8 for Intel using it as a standard desktop OS, Solaris,
surprsingly, feels faster than RedHat 7.2 (and considering that Solaris is on a
hard drive with one-tenth the space, and less than one-third the speed, why is
it kicking RH butt?).
Am I normally a fan of a true UNIX (which Solaris definitely is)? Heck, no.
Am I nortmally a fan of CDE? Also, no. (In fact, you could easily have said
that I *loathe* CDE, as it reminds me too much of Motif.)
But Solaris is surprising me.
Christopher L. Estep
Christopher L. Estep
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, John wrote:
>
> > Debian is your best bet, Sun will have their own distribution out within the next 6
>
> Not for SPARC. Sun's Linux will be x86 only.
>
> --
> Rich Teer
>
> President,
> Rite Online Inc.
And I would rather see Solaris 9 for Intel.
No, I am *not* kidding.
Why would someone who has been characterized as a dyed-in-the-wool *Windows lover* want
Solaris 9 for Intel?
Simple: seeing what Solaris 8 for Intel can do as (don't laugh) a *desktop OS*.
Solaris can indeed be a serious benchmark for desktop OSes (not just Linux and BSD, but
even Windows XP) given hardware support matching Linux (the one area, other than
applications, where Solaris is weak compared to Linux).
In fact, Solaris can kick Linux' tail in in terms of desktop performance (given that I
have Linux on half of an ATA-100 HD, and Solaris on an ATA-33 HD, you would expect the
penguin to win; how come that *isn't* happening?) given identical hardware support.
Why should Solaris for Intel be shelved?
Christopher L. Estep
Christopher L. Estep
> "root" <ro...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:ua5ait6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > In article <a73gpv$1ghc$1...@newsfeeds.rpi.edu>,
> > Derek Konigsberg <oc...@logicprobe.org> writes:
> > >> Debian is your best bet, Sun will have their own distribution out within
> > >> the next 6 months but Debian is best for now.
> > >
> > > I'd have to agree. I have a toy SPARCstation 10 here (got it from someone
> > > who found it discarded) and wanted to test it before I could get ahold of
> a
> > > copy of Solaris 2.6 (it has a ZX framebuffer, so Sol 8 wouldn't fly). So,
> > > for about a week I ran Debian Linux on it. I was actually quite
> impressed.
> > > Sparc Linux uses the framebuffer for console just like it can on x86, so
> > > the text console looks cool. Also, X worked just fine. Overall, a nice
> > > setup.
> > >
> > > -Derek
> > >
> > I have several sparcs running RedHat 6.2 that are doing fine. RedHat is no
> longer supporting sparc though. Suse 7.3 looks good but seems to do
> everything more slowly.
>
> Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating their own
> Linux distribution. Assuming they don't make a mess of it, like they did with
> solaris, it should quickly establish itself as the defacto OS on Sun hardware.
I am curious...in what way did they make a mess of Solaris?
If you are talking about anything *other* than hardware support, I have to
disagree (even on Intel). I'm not a fan of UNIX (and especially not of CDE), but
Solaris is growing on me.
Hardware support in Solaris (especially on Intel) seems to be the Achilles' heel
(other than application support).
Application support can be worked on (SUNfreeware, among others, is doing a good
job on that).
I fully believe Sun's Linux on Intel efforts are designed to avoid doing what it
would take to make Solaris *the* preferred desktop OS of choice (not just over
Windows, but even over Linux) on *Intel* hardware (not just SPARC).
Like I said, I'm not normally a fan of UNIX (and in fact I hated CDE because it
reminds me too much of Motif); however, CDE with Solaris looks darn good (and is
plenty fast when set up properly).
Christopher L. Estep (Solaris 8 for Intel-driven)
Barbie LeVile
"Christopher L. Estep" <pgha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> As someone who has added Solaris to his OS arsenal (same PC as the XP/RH
> dual-boot box, but a completely separate hard drive, and a nominally
> *slower* one, but don't tell Solaris that), and from spending some time
> with a properly set-up Solaris 8 for Intel using it as a standard desktop
> OS, Solaris, surprsingly, feels faster than RedHat 7.2 (and considering
> that Solaris is on a hard drive with one-tenth the space, and less than
> one-third the speed, why is it kicking RH butt?).
>
I made the same experiance years ago with sol7 and redhat 6 something, same machine, k6-2/400 with 64mb, solaris did feel smoother, played back mp3s without a problem, while the redhat skiped, playing mpeg movies with mtv on both, worked like a charm on the soalris, painfull on the redhat, even with accellerated X and newer mtv versions, overall responsiveness was way more balanced too.
so, yes, why would anyone want linux is a good uestion, i'm certainly not wanting it an any of my systems.
--
Barbie - Prayers are like junkmail for Jesus
I have seen things you lusers would not believe.
I've seen Sun monitors on fire off the side of the multimedia lab.
I've seen NTU lights glitter in the dark near the Mail Gate.
All these things will be lost in time, like the root partition last week.
Time to die.
Rich Teer
> Uhhh...applications?
>
> While there is growing application support for Solaris (not just on SPARC, but
> even IA-32), Solaris loses (and loses large) to Linux on the application front.
WHat ARE you smoking? Solaris (on SPARC) has MANY more commercial applications
than Linux. And most of Linux's applications are GNU, hence are available in
source. They'll build on Solaris with various degrees of difficulty.
> Am I nortmally a fan of CDE? Also, no. (In fact, you could easily have said
> that I *loathe* CDE, as it reminds me too much of Motif.)
That's because CDE is uses the Motif look and feel.
> But Solaris is surprising me.
Welcome to The One True OS!
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
Rich Teer
> so, yes, why would anyone want linux is a good uestion, i'm certainly not wanting it an any of my systems.
One owrd: hype. Linux has it, and (unfortunately) Solaris
doesn't.
I R A Darth Aggie
Christopher L. Estep <pgha...@comcast.net>, in
<3CCE89BE...@comcast.net> wrote:
+> I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+>
+> > On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:53:33 GMT,
+> > Bill Crocker <billc...@ameritech.net>, in
+> > <hMKk8.10743$k5.40...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
+> >
+> > +> If one were to choose to run Linux, vs. Solaris, on a Sparc Ultra10, what
+> > +> might be the preferred distribution?
+> >
+> > Ummmm...Solaris? otherwise, Debian or perhaps SuSe. Perhaps one of the
+> > BSD's would suit you?
+> >
+> > And yes, I'm serious. What does linux or BSD buy you that Solaris
+> > can't? I could see avoiding Solaris if you had, say a SS1 with 48mb of
+> > memory and your choices where Solaris 8 and Linux.
+> Uhhh...applications?
And this can't be solved by a quick trip to sunfreeware.com?
Reed Scruggs
> John wrote:
>
> > "root" <ro...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:ua5ait6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > In article <a73gpv$1ghc$1...@newsfeeds.rpi.edu>,
> > > Derek Konigsberg <oc...@logicprobe.org> writes:
> > > >> Debian is your best bet, Sun will have their own distribution out within
> > > >> the next 6 months but Debian is best for now.
> > > >
> > > > I'd have to agree. I have a toy SPARCstation 10 here (got it from someone
> > > > who found it discarded) and wanted to test it before I could get ahold of
> > a
> > > > copy of Solaris 2.6 (it has a ZX framebuffer, so Sol 8 wouldn't fly). So,
> > > > for about a week I ran Debian Linux on it. I was actually quite
> > impressed.
> > > > Sparc Linux uses the framebuffer for console just like it can on x86, so
> > > > the text console looks cool. Also, X worked just fine. Overall, a nice
> > > > setup.
> > > >
> > > > -Derek
> > > >
> > > I have several sparcs running RedHat 6.2 that are doing fine. RedHat is no
> > longer supporting sparc though. Suse 7.3 looks good but seems to do
> > everything more slowly.
Depends on if you are using 32 bit sparc, or 64 bit ULTRASPARC. I have yet to find
a ULTRASPARC box that did not run SuSE faster than SOLARIS.(ULTRA 5/10, ULTRA 30,
ULTRA 1, BLADE 100, ULTRA AXi).
>
> >
> > Sun are currently spending huge amounts of R&D dollars in creating their own
> > Linux distribution. Assuming they don't make a mess of it, like they did with
> > solaris, it should quickly establish itself as the defacto OS on Sun hardware.
On SPARC? I do not see it happening with what they are spending money on now. They
are creating a x86 distro. All work on SPARC that I have heard of is in allowing
LINUX applications to run on SOLARIS.
>
>
> I am curious...in what way did they make a mess of Solaris?
>
> If you are talking about anything *other* than hardware support, I have to
> disagree (even on Intel). I'm not a fan of UNIX (and especially not of CDE), but
> Solaris is growing on me.
>
> Hardware support in Solaris (especially on Intel) seems to be the Achilles' heel
> (other than application support).
>
> Application support can be worked on (SUNfreeware, among others, is doing a good
> job on that).
>
> I fully believe Sun's Linux on Intel efforts are designed to avoid doing what it
> would take to make Solaris *the* preferred desktop OS of choice (not just over
> Windows, but even over Linux) on *Intel* hardware (not just SPARC).
>
> Like I said, I'm not normally a fan of UNIX (and in fact I hated CDE because it
> reminds me too much of Motif); however, CDE with Solaris looks darn good (and is
> plenty fast when set up properly).
>
> Christopher L. Estep (Solaris 8 for Intel-driven)
I believe from remarks made in the last quarterly report SUN will not be making a
desktop LINUX box, but a 1U single and dual processor x86 machine for edge
computing. It was interesting that they were very adamant that the box would be
x86, and not necessarily INTEL as one of the reporters suggested.
Reed
bit-b...@maney.org
: I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
[...]
:> And yes, I'm serious. What does linux or BSD buy you that Solaris
:> can't? I could see avoiding Solaris if you had, say a SS1 with 48mb of
:> memory and your choices where Solaris 8 and Linux.
: Uhhh...applications?
Solaris has *many* commercial applications available for it than any
of the Linux or BSD distributions. As for the non-commercial applications,
nearly all of them are available in source format, so it's a reasonably
simply process of downloading, compiling, configuring and installing
to get those apps on Solaris.
[...]
: Am I nortmally a fan of CDE? Also, no. (In fact, you could easily
: have said that I *loathe* CDE, as it reminds me too much of Motif.)
I'll agree here. I loathe CDE (it is *far* too much of a resource hog
for my tastes, particularly when we are talking about production
servers). KDE isn't any better in my experience. GNOME is looking a
bit more promising, but I'm not holding my breath.
Personally I wish they'd dump them all and go back to OpenWindows.
[...]
fpsm
--
| Fredrich P. Maney my_last_name AT my_last_name DOT org |
| Do NOT send me HTML formatted E-mail or copies of netnews posts! |
| Address in header is a spamtrap. Use one in signature for replies. |
| Please review http://www.maney.org/fred/site/uce/ before emailing. |
Rich Teer
> I'll agree here. I loathe CDE (it is *far* too much of a resource hog
GNOME (1.4 anyway) is MUCH worse... :-(
> for my tastes, particularly when we are talking about production
Umm, X on a production server?
> servers). KDE isn't any better in my experience. GNOME is looking a
> bit more promising, but I'm not holding my breath.
I tried it brifely on my Ultra 1 200E. A bloated, slow pig.
Reminded me of Windoze *shudder*.
#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293
[Snip...]
>Personally I wish they'd dump them all and go back to OpenWindows.
Wow, and I thought I was a Luddite for quietly insisting on it. :)
I still use olwm (etc.) almost exclusively on Sun and Linux setups and
it runs circles (for my purposes) around bloatware like Gnome. I guess
if push came to shove I'd obviously pick (say) KDE over Windows but it
is just damning with faint praise, for my part. :)
Seriously, if you're a Sun greybeard type like me, and fed up with the
bloat/complexity of Gnome/KDE (etc.), have a look at OpenWindows.
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (mklog*) in place for spambots.
Really it's (wyrd) at raytheon, dotted with com. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions not Raytheon Company.
Barbie LeVile
ste...@mklog4.rsc.raytheon.com (#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293) wrote:
> In <aaoumf$qqu$2...@newsread.stdio.com>, bit-b...@maney.org:
>
> [Snip...]
>
> >Personally I wish they'd dump them all and go back to OpenWindows.
>
> Wow, and I thought I was a Luddite for quietly insisting on it. :)
>
> I still use olwm (etc.) almost exclusively on Sun and Linux setups and
> it runs circles (for my purposes) around bloatware like Gnome. I guess
> if push came to shove I'd obviously pick (say) KDE over Windows but it
> is just damning with faint praise, for my part. :)
>
> Seriously, if you're a Sun greybeard type like me, and fed up with the
> bloat/complexity of Gnome/KDE (etc.), have a look at OpenWindows.
>
i run a customized cde when i need all features, or my own wm when i want the ultimate in speed.
Rich Teer
> On Wed, 01 May 2002 17:31:07 GMT
> ste...@mklog4.rsc.raytheon.com (#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293) wrote:
>
> > In <aaoumf$qqu$2...@newsread.stdio.com>, bit-b...@maney.org:
> >
> > Seriously, if you're a Sun greybeard type like me, and fed up with the
> > bloat/complexity of Gnome/KDE (etc.), have a look at OpenWindows.
That won't be possible from Solaris 9: The OpenWindows have
been shut, boarded up, and removed.
Barbie LeVile
Rich Teer <ri...@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Barbie LeVile wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 01 May 2002 17:31:07 GMT
> > ste...@mklog4.rsc.raytheon.com (#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293) wrote:
> >
> > > In <aaoumf$qqu$2...@newsread.stdio.com>, bit-b...@maney.org:
> > >
> > > Seriously, if you're a Sun greybeard type like me, and fed up with the
> > > bloat/complexity of Gnome/KDE (etc.), have a look at OpenWindows.
>
> That won't be possible from Solaris 9: The OpenWindows have
> been shut, boarded up, and removed.
>
Yup, its gone.
hmm, maybe i try to install the sol8 openwin pkgs on my sol9 box and see if they work...
#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293
>On Thu, 02 May 2002 00:34:34 GMT Rich Teer:
[Snip...]
>> That won't be possible from Solaris 9: The OpenWindows have
>> been shut, boarded up, and removed.
>>
>Yup, its gone.
This is very dissapointing to me, especially (as I hear it, anyway), Gnome
is to become the Sun default desktop. Info/corrections about that move are
welcome, as I'm lukewarm about bloat like KDE/Gnome, personally.
>hmm, maybe i try to install the sol8 openwin pkgs on my sol9 box and see
>if they work...
I would appreciate hearing about results if this appears workable. Or, is
source available for compiling some sort of OpenWindows support, maybe?
bit-b...@maney.org
: On 1 May 2002 bit-b...@maney.org wrote:
:> I'll agree here. I loathe CDE (it is *far* too much of a resource hog
: GNOME (1.4 anyway) is MUCH worse... :-(
:> for my tastes, particularly when we are talking about production
: Umm, X on a production server?
Yeah, I know. I'm just the lowly contract consultant though, I'm
not allowed to do something like change the "standard install image"
from "Full Distribution + OEM".
:> servers). KDE isn't any better in my experience. GNOME is looking a
:> bit more promising, but I'm not holding my breath.
: I tried it brifely on my Ultra 1 200E. A bloated, slow pig.
Sounds like CDE and KDE.
: Reminded me of Windoze *shudder*.
Me too, though I think there is some merit in the "make it look like
windows on the desktop in order to not frighten the lusers and try to
steal the MS userbase".
Rich Teer
> Yeah, I know. I'm just the lowly contract consultant though, I'm
I know what you mean: "We're paying for your expertose, but we'll
ignore it anyway..."
> not allowed to do something like change the "standard install image"
> from "Full Distribution + OEM".
It astonishes me the number of "admins" that do this type of
install on a server.
> Me too, though I think there is some merit in the "make it look like
> windows on the desktop in order to not frighten the lusers and try to
> steal the MS userbase".
I'd agree, as long as wthere was some easy, DOCUMENTED way of changing
the window manager to something more friendly to people with an IQ that
has at least two digits.
ger...@gtconnect.net
ste...@mklog4.rsc.raytheon.com (#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293) writes:
> In <20020502025307....@toppoint.de>, Barbie LeVile:
>>On Thu, 02 May 2002 00:34:34 GMT Rich Teer:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>>> That won't be possible from Solaris 9: The OpenWindows have
>>> been shut, boarded up, and removed.
>>>
>>Yup, its gone.
>
> This is very dissapointing to me, especially (as I hear it, anyway), Gnome
> is to become the Sun default desktop. Info/corrections about that move are
> welcome, as I'm lukewarm about bloat like KDE/Gnome, personally.
It is disappointing (and stupid). I seem to recall not TOO long ago
Mr McNealy saying that OpenWindows would be replaced "..over his dead body.."
Guess he died.
Anyway perhaps when Sun gets around to officially supporting GNOME
is will actually stop core dumping. Maybe.
>>hmm, maybe i try to install the sol8 openwin pkgs on my sol9 box and see
>>if they work...
Very likely.
> I would appreciate hearing about results if this appears workable. Or, is
> source available for compiling some sort of OpenWindows support, maybe?
I dont know - the libs are around - Pretty sure I built olwm from source
years ago...
#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293
>In <slrnad2brj....@mklog4.rsc.raytheon.com>, Harold Stevens:
[Snip...]
>> I would appreciate hearing about results if this appears workable. Or, is
>> source available for compiling some sort of OpenWindows support, maybe?
>
>I dont know - the libs are around - Pretty sure I built olwm from source
>years ago...
I went Googling around for ol(v)wm source (etc.) for about 20 minutes just
now, but came up empty handed. Did find a curious reference to a patch for
olvwm at an X site:
http://ftp.x.org/contrib/window_managers/
(file named olvwm4.Patch02.Z). But no backports of the orginal source, for
all I could tell.
My latest Linux Intel install (SuSE 7.3 Pro) has ol(v)wm binaries in their
YaST package management and I installed them easily. But I don't know if a
source package for ol(v)wm is included in the standard SuSE boxed set.
At any rate, yes, for me, too: dropping OpenWindows was just dumb. Gnome's
a poor substitute to me compared to breezing around in olwm. Especially if
(as it appears to me) Gnome isn't quite ready for primetime anywhere.
Chuck Swiger
>> not allowed to do something like change the "standard install image"
>> from "Full Distribution + OEM".
>
> It astonishes me the number of "admins" that do this type of
> install on a server.
Really? What astonishes me is that people write software which contain
excessive, inappropriate, or hidden dependencies that expect to (for example)
link against the X11 shared libraries.
Which means that admins configuring machines sometimes have to choose between
performing a full install (with all that implies), or performing a minimal
install which then is missing some hidden dependency. Minimalistic installs
*are* highly desirable.
But situations change, sometimes.
I happen to think that what constitutes a software baseline is better judged
by whether that baseline is well-defined, all dependencies are fully
identified, and is carefully maintained vis-a-vis security updates, rather
than whether or not a software baseline contains additional software which is
not currently required for a specific situation.
-Chuck
Chuck Swiger | ch...@codefab.com | All your packets are belong to us.
-------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
"The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts
is to ignore them." -Celia Green
Anthony Mandic
> I went Googling around for ol(v)wm source (etc.) for about 20 minutes just
> now, but came up empty handed. Did find a curious reference to a patch for
> olvwm at an X site:
You should have just gone direct to http://sunfreeware.com/
You'll find Olvwm-4.4p4 precompiled plus the source.
-am © 2002
#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293
[Snip...]
> You should have just gone direct to http://sunfreeware.com/
> You'll find Olvwm-4.4p4 precompiled plus the source.
Thanks; I downloaded a source tarball from the site suggested in another
post
ftp://ftp.x.org/R5contrib/olvwm4.tar.Z
but it had some caveats in the README about various dependencies (fonts,
libolgx.a, and olwmslave, mainly) needing additional legwork.
BTW, if OpenWindows is shut, what's the future for apps like mailtool or
cm, if Gnome is to become the desktop of choice (grim, I presume)?
Barbie LeVile
>
> BTW, if OpenWindows is shut, what's the future for apps like mailtool or
> cm, if Gnome is to become the desktop of choice (grim, I presume)?
>
dead, gone buried.
use the cde parts, dtmail, dtcm, they work pretty much the same way.
As for gnome, THAT should be buried like 2 miles deep and forgotten
#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293
[Snip...Re: mailtool, cm, etc.]
>dead, gone buried.
>use the cde parts, dtmail, dtcm, they work pretty much the same way.
Thanks for the tip. I keep coming back to mailtool and cm after occasional
casual flings with other GUIfied personal mail and calendar managers. Dang
oldfashioned Sun things even work suprisingly well over dialups. :)
>As for gnome, THAT should be buried like 2 miles deep and forgotten
I always liked Sun, but lately, they seem a company losing focus. There is
what, four head honchos (Ed Zander or whomever last week?) gone within the
year at last count?
And for the life of me, I think Gnome has some promise, but it isn't close
to being tolerant of primetime production duty as OpenWindows on a bad day
even (AFAIK, unless Sun has done a heckuva lotta Gnome cleanup). Taking on
Star Office and Gnome as some sort of diffuse "Linux" strategy isn't going
to win over many Penguinistas and Windows orphans or placate most hardline
FSF critics.
K. Hermansader
>
> #Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293 <ste...@mklog4.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote:
>
> : >I dont know - the libs are around - Pretty sure I built olwm from source
> : >years ago...
> :
> : I went Googling around for ol(v)wm source (etc.) for about 20 minutes just
> : now, but came up empty handed. Did find a curious reference to a patch for
> : olvwm at an X site:
> :
> : http://ftp.x.org/contrib/window_managers/
>
>
or you could just look on the solaris 8 companion cd.. I believe since
sometime last year (maybe earlier?) it includes both a binary and
source for olvwm 4.4.
~k
John Benham
<ger...@gtconnect.net> wrote in message news:DydA8.1281$xZ4.25323@localhost...
> In article <slrnad2brj....@mklog4.rsc.raytheon.com>,
> ste...@mklog4.rsc.raytheon.com (#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293) writes:
> > In <20020502025307....@toppoint.de>, Barbie LeVile:
> >>On Thu, 02 May 2002 00:34:34 GMT Rich Teer:
> >
> > [Snip...]
> >
> >>> That won't be possible from Solaris 9: The OpenWindows have
> >>> been shut, boarded up, and removed.
> >>>
> >>Yup, its gone.
> >
> > This is very dissapointing to me, especially (as I hear it, anyway), Gnome
> > is to become the Sun default desktop. Info/corrections about that move are
> > welcome, as I'm lukewarm about bloat like KDE/Gnome, personally.
>
> It is disappointing (and stupid). I seem to recall not TOO long ago
> Mr McNealy saying that OpenWindows would be replaced "..over his dead body.."
> Guess he died.
> Anyway perhaps when Sun gets around to officially supporting GNOME
> is will actually stop core dumping. Maybe.
The idea is to move solaris users over to a Linux GUI first, then fully over to Linux by 2004/5.
Rich Teer
> The idea is to move solaris users over to a Linux GUI first, then fully over to Linux by 2004/5.
Nice try - but totally wrong.
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
John Benham
"Rich Teer" <ri...@rite-group.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.02051...@mars.rite-group.com...
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, John Benham wrote:
>
> > The idea is to move solaris users over to a Linux GUI first, then fully over to Linux by 2004/5.
>
> Nice try - but totally wrong.
Then why is Sun seemingly so desperate to associate itself with Linux?
Of course they'd love to remove the burden of solaris and become as dynamic as IBM.
michel
ever heard of aix?
Benny
Remove the Solaris burden from IBM just to become "as dynamic" (sic) ,
why would Sun want to do that ?
--
Disclaimer:
My opinions are not to be confused with those of my employer, Sun
Microsystems.
As in "a cat is not to be confused with a pack of lions". Purrrrrrrrrr.
Chris Newport
Just FOAD, you are just trolling again.
DO NOT crosspost to uk.comp.sys.sun
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
Chris Newport
> >Of course they'd love to remove the burden of solaris and become as dynamic as IBM.
> >
> >
> ever heard of aix?
And which part of DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS did you not understand ?.
michel
maybe i posted that before i had a chance to read yours.. kick start
that grey matter
John Benham
"Benny" <kley...@pi.be> wrote in message news:3CE579D5...@pi.be...
> John Benham wrote:
> >
> > "Rich Teer" <ri...@rite-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.44.02051...@mars.rite-group.com...
> > > On Wed, 15 May 2002, John Benham wrote:
> > >
> > > > The idea is to move solaris users over to a Linux GUI first, then fully over to Linux by 2004/5.
> > >
> > > Nice try - but totally wrong.
> >
> > Then why is Sun seemingly so desperate to associate itself with Linux?
> >
> > Of course they'd love to remove the burden of solaris and become as dynamic as IBM.
>
> Remove the Solaris burden from IBM just to become "as dynamic" (sic) ,
> why would Sun want to do that ?
Because they are losing market share to IBM by the bucket load!!! IBM have just pulled off a deal with Colgate
worth "tens of millions of dollars" from right under the nose of Sun. Sun have to reduce costs to compete
effectively.
Benny
> > why would Sun want to do that ?
>
> Because they are losing market share to IBM by the bucket load!!! IBM have just pulled off a deal with Colgate
> worth "tens of millions of dollars" from right under the nose of Sun. Sun have to reduce costs to compete
> effectively.
Great ! A troll with white teeth !
Akop Pogosian
> "Rich Teer" <ri...@rite-group.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.02051...@mars.rite-group.com...
>> On Wed, 15 May 2002, John Benham wrote:
>>
>> > The idea is to move solaris users over to a Linux GUI first, then fully over to Linux by 2004/5.
>>
>> Nice try - but totally wrong.
> Then why is Sun seemingly so desperate to associate itself with Linux?
Why? Because the industry suffers from the "Me-too" syndrome. Linux
has become a buzzword, just like Java, so everyone feels that it is
important to say "we too do Linux". Though very often, those "me-too
Linux" statements often work against Linux (e.g. IBM, Sun, and SCO
adding some freeware software to their proprietary unix systems,
calling that "Linux compatibility layer" and then announcing that they
-too- support Linux.. by making their unix systems more compatible
with "Linux applications" essentially trying to lure the people away
from real Linux systems.)
Now you can go back to your cave ..
-akop
Ender Wiggin
And IBM has to lay of 8000 people (after already having to fire a couple
of 1000 a few months ago).
In case you hadn't seen it before: "Sun Makes Gains In Unix Market As
IBM Slips"
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle?doc_id=IWK20020514S0004
IBM might be gaining overall (thanks to Mainframe, juck, Wintel boxes,
juck) but in Sun's Market, i.e. Unix Boxes in case you didn't know, IBM
is slipping...
Ender
Goran Cvetanoski
Suns Press Release:
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2002-05/sunflash.20020514.1.html
Paul Eggert
> http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle?doc_id=IWK20020514S0004
>
> IBM might be gaining overall
Actually, that report says that Sun gained faster than IBM did, even
if you look at the overall US server market. See:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-912700.html
which says that, in overall US server sales revenue for 1Q2002:
IBM had 29.3% share, up 1.3%.
Sun had 23.6% share, up 2.2%.
(It's just one quarter, of course.)
John Benham
"Ender Wiggin" <Ender....@NO-SPAM.Pandora.BE> wrote in message news:3CE580FC...@NO-SPAM.Pandora.BE...
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-856245.html
says differently.
John Benham
"Goran Cvetanoski" <gcve...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:3CE585EA...@bigpond.net.au...
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/news/pressreleases/2001/dec/outsell.html
Tom Tobin
> >
> > Suns Press Release:
> > http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2002-05/sunflash.20020514.1.html
> >
> >
> IBMs Press Release
>
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/news/pressreleases/2001/dec/out
sell.html
>
Here is IBM's report for the same quarter:
http://www.ibm.com/investor/1q02/1q02earnings.phtml
Even their CEO found it difficult to put a positive slant on it.
But he said IBM are leading the opposition...
He didn't say where, tho!;-)
Interesting note, at the bottom, about buying their own shares.
Tom.
Benny
Yep, that was what I was talking about.
babumo...@gmail.com
http://www.bestlinuxdistros.com/2012/04/best-distro-for-your-needs.html
Barry OGrady
wrote:
>Choosing best Linux distros depends upon your machine specifications,your needs and your knowledge about Linux distros.Every one has their own opinions about best linux distros.I have categorized them into various groups so that a reader can easily choose the best distro for his need.Read my article at
>http://www.bestlinuxdistros.com/2012/04/best-distro-for-your-needs.html
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind."
--Thomas Paine
Barry OGrady
<ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:03:55 -0700 (PDT), babumo...@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>Choosing best Linux distros depends upon your machine specifications,your needs and your knowledge about Linux distros.Every one has their own opinions about best linux distros.I have categorized them into various groups so that a reader can easily choose the best distro for his need.Read my article at
>>http://www.bestlinuxdistros.com/2012/04/best-distro-for-your-needs.html
>
>Sol 10
babumo...@gmail.com
>http://www.bestlinuxdistros.com/2012/04/best-distro-for-your-needs.html
babumo...@gmail.com
>http://www.bestlinuxdistros.com/2012/04/best-distro-for-your-needs.html