Windows NT vs. Solaris (was Re: Microsoft Pays Off...)
Peter van der Linden
>Today even naive users expect to be able to administer powerful operating
>systems with ease. Windows NT has upped the ante. NT provides easy
>to use graphical user interfaces to do everything from configuring the
>network to installing new applications. Even kids can install, configure
>and use Windows NT.
That's a bogus claim. Let me give you a datapoint of how easy NT's
sister system Windows95 is to install and run. After installing Win95
DNS resolution completely stopped on my PC. I spent 3 months intermittently
trying to track this down with my service provider. Eventually I took
my system into their facility, and they were able to prove that the
fault wasn't at their end.
I placed a service call to Microsoft in Redmond. After 1 hr on the
phone, they were able to demonstrate that the problem was resolved by
getting rid of the file autoexec.bat. If I have even one line in that
to set my path, if I have even an empty autoexec.bat, DNS resolution
fails. There is no patch, no understanding of the problem, no promise
to fix it. Just live with it. I don't call this easy configuration.
The tools which we take for granted on Unix like truss were totally
absent on the Windows platform. It was a nightmare to try to find out
what was going on, and still no one knows why. And I end up paying
the bill for their crap software, and for finding their bug.
> Sun just hasn't kept up. If you have a Solaris
> workstation on your desk you better have an experienced sysadmin person
>on hand to fix problems. Even many Sun engineers can't install and
>administer Solaris without help.
Sun installation used to be horrible, I made a real nuisance of myself
trying to interest others in fixing the problems. Guess what? They
did! Installation has improved dramatically with every successive
release. Get this: even *managers* commonly install their own
workstation OS now. ANd it continue to improve all the time.
Often installation and admin is a question of which system you are
most familiar with. Take a look at Sun systems again. A trick gui
doesn't do much. As someone said "Microsoft's superficial design flaws
completely hide their fundamental design flaws."
Peter
--
Peter van der Linden lin...@Eng.sun.com Java -> http://www.best.com/~pvdl
If Christopher Robin dropped acid: Bananas in pyjamas chasing teddy bears.
Recent Java ad: "Build advanced systems in nascent genres."
Kevin Kuehl
Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> It is not just at marketing that Sun has failed. It is also at improving
> the usability of their products. When it comes to keeping up with the
> times Sun has done amazingly poorly.
That is one of the things that has amazed me about Sun also. I
have been using Suns for about 10 years and have been suprised
at how little the company has moved forward in that past five
years when compared to the previous five years.
> Now with the release of NT 4.0 (with sexy Win95 user interface) and also
> because memory prices have fallen steeply, NT market-share is going to
> grow even faster (to the detriment of the industry). I predict that
> unless Sun makes Solaris easy to administer (even for kids), Sun will not
> last another 5 years. Java technology can only take you so far.
People have been predicting the demise of Sun for a long time
now and somehow they seem to hang on. In the past, I felt it
was because their primary competitors, other UNIX vendors, were
even more inept. However, Sun has little to offer right now
versus the WinTel folks and Suns costs a lot more. I think Sun's
only hope now is Java. Eventually Microsoft will get WinNT to
the point where it can push the Solaris servers out of the way.
--
Kevin Kuehl
kku...@inil.com
Peter van der Linden
Rajeev Karunakaran <raj...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I am sure even you will agree that this is an isolated incident. Read
I wish this Windows 95 problem were an isolated incident.
I must have reinstalled the OS ten times in an attempt to show the
persistence of the problem to others including Microsoft. After
each installation, there was always some new anomalous behavior: the
system shutdown screen changed, some other configuration was modified,
printing stopped working, etc etc.
The point about wishing I had "truss" was so I could see what was
going on.
I'm not going to continue this dialog any further with you, as it's
clear you have a position you are holding to no matter what. My
position is that your remarks are unfair and untrue. All software
systems have bugs, and all software systems have points of improvement.
Jan D.
In article <rajeevDx...@netcom.com>,
Rajeev Karunakaran <raj...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Not true. For the last 6 years I have had a PC and a Sun Workstation
> on my desk. The PC has changed dramatically in the last 6 years. The
> Sun/Solaris workstation has hardly changed. (The change from BSD to
> System V and from OpenLook to Motif/CDE is not counted because those
> are mere switches to a different flavor of what is essentially the
> same technology. Those are not major technological advancements.)
> There have been no major improvements in usability. Sun has been
> standing still too long.
The PC has not changed dramatically in the last 6 years. DOS,
DOS, DOS and still DOS. The GUI change are mere switches to a different
flavor of what is essentially the same technology.
Those are not major technological advancements.
Jan D.
Kurtis D. Rader
raj...@netcom.com (Rajeev Karunakaran) writes:
>Peter van der Linden (lin...@positive.eng.sun.com) wrote:
>: The point about wishing I had "truss" was so I could see what was
>: going on.
>Allow me to explain this again. *You* can understand the output from
>truss. But that's only because you are a programmer. Now unlike Unix,
>Windows is not an operating system that was designed with techie nerds
>in mind. In makes perfect sense for a consumer OS like Win95 to hide
>such complexities from users. Users just want to have everything work
>at the flick of a switch. Now, as you found out, Win95 may not have
>achieved this ideal yet. But they are getting there.
Exactly how do you think technical support personnel solve problems?
Far too many people think "ctrl-alt-del" or resintallation of the software
are normal and acceptable troubleshooting steps. As an end-user I don't
want to have to deal with such matters. As a customer service engineer
I have to have tools like truss, top, and tcpdump to solve the problems
my customers experience.
When was the last time you migrated to a new laptop? I changed from a
Toshiba to IBM Thinkpad last Christmas. It took me an entire week to get
everything reinstalled and working properly. If it was that difficult
for a Sequent customer to upgrade to a new system we probably wouldn't
be in business.
There are a lot of good things to say about MS Windows, Win95, and NT.
Nonethelsss, I get a migraine (figuratevely speaking) whenever I have
to solve a problem with an MS operating systems because of the lack of
decent troubleshooting tools. The day Microsoft ships bug free software
I'll change my opnion. I anticipate being retired before that happens :-)
--
Kurtis D. Rader, Senior Consultant kra...@sequent.com (email)
Sequent Computer Systems +1 503/578-3714 (voice) +65 223-5116 (fax)
80 Robinson Road, #18-03 Currently on assignment in the
Singapore, 0106 Asia-Pacific region
Eric L. Patterson
Kevin Kuehl wrote:
> People have been predicting the demise of Sun for a long time
> now and somehow they seem to hang on. In the past, I felt it
> was because their primary competitors, other UNIX vendors, were
> even more inept. However, Sun has little to offer right now
> versus the WinTel folks and Suns costs a lot more. I think Sun's
> only hope now is Java. Eventually Microsoft will get WinNT to
> the point where it can push the Solaris servers out of the way.
God help us if Microsoft takes over. I would hate to have to
use a damn gui to add 40/50 users at a time to my network. Hell,
even Novell has gone to a Windoze gui, and I hate having to
point & click everything. I guess my real point is, Gui's are
great, so long as you aren't forced to use one. In other words,
Let there be GUI, but give us a choice.
--
Eric Patterson UNIX/Novell System Administrator
ele...@ne.ksu.edu Dept. of Nuclear/Mechanical
Engineering
(913)-532-6272 Kansas State University
http://www.ne.ksu.edu/~electro
Kevin Kuehl
I believe you are quite wrong on this. A PC six years ago is quite
a different animal than today's. The hardware is considerably better
(not just faster but also much more easy to use and configure) and
the software is a giant leap forward when compared to circa-1990.
Windows 95 and Windows NT has much less in common with DOS 3/5 than
Solaris 2.5.1 has with Solaris 1.0.3.
To say the PC today is essentially the same as 6 years ago shows a
total lack of understanding of what the PC was six years ago and what
it is today. Either that or by your definition there have been no
major technological advancements in computing at all in the last 6
years.
--
Kevin Kuehl
kku...@inil.com
Robert Atkins
Rajeev Karunakaran (raj...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Often installation and admin is a question of which system you are
: : most familiar with. Take a look at Sun systems again. A trick gui
: : doesn't do much. As someone said "Microsoft's superficial design flaws
: : completely hide their fundamental design flaws."
Heh. That was my .sig. It was originally said of the Sirius Cybernetics
corporation, but I thought it was appropriate.
I just couldn't believe it when people were running about being so
excited, praising the benevolent Microsoft for finally casting out 8+3
filenames. Completely forgetting, of course, that it was M$ who imposed
8+3 filenames on us in the first place.
: utilities that even kids can use. And just to make a point with the
: customers, Sun should leave out the shell.
What, and watch all the nerds drop Sun like a stone for implying they've
got the same IQ as the average Mac luser?
--
+--- -- - Robert Atkins, rat...@cs.newcastle.edu.au
| "Their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their :
: superficial design flaws." -- Douglas Adams on Microsof, er, |
the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation - -- ---+
Join the NU Comp Sci Society! http://wwwcs.newcastle.edu.au/CSS/
JeroenHoppenbrouwers
Rajeev Karunakaran (raj...@netcom.com) wrote:
> My main points are --
> 1. Microsoft Windows NT is fast capturing market and mind share from Sun
> and other Unix vendors.
Not capturing market share FROM. It creates new markets---in the low-end
areas. Some tasks such as file and print serving and light database serving
don't need heavy systems any more. This is where NT gains, just as the PC
did not take over the mainframe but got complementary to it, contrary to
popular belief.
Compare the PC base. 95% of all computers on Earth are PCs running DOS.
So PCs are the most important platform? Come on. If the UNIX boxes went
on strike, 99% of the world would stop working---including the networked PCs.
That most people did never see any other computer than a PC does not say
anything about the importance of the machines in the cellar. Hell, there
are more luxury cars than trucks---get rid of the trucks! They are obsolete!
> 2. The reason for Point #1 is not that NT is a better performing server
> operating system, it is because administration costs for NT is far lower.
For the simple tasks, it's true. But the heavy environments still cannot
rely on NT. Try adding 2000 new student accounts in batch on NT.
> 3. The logical concluson from Point #2 is that to beat off Microsoft, Sun
> should make Solaris easier to administer.
NT is wonderful for out-of-the-box solutions. Unfortunately for M$, 90% of
the UNIX systems don't run just word processing or an SQL server. They need
capable administrators, no mouse click fans. Installing the system and regular
maintenance is still a small part of the actual work on the system that runs
on the box. A graphical user interface does not change that.
Your secretary can click a mouse ---> she can administer your main
mission-critical server as well. Hah! Get a life.
Yes, she can administer a bunch of print queues and look at the amount
of free disk space. She probably can also add a new user to a file server.
Can she resolve a nice IP address clash? It only takes re-entry of a
name, you say, so she can. I see.
--
Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, Senior Researcher at | Stop connecting computers;
Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands | start connecting people!
http://infolabwww.kub.nl:2080/infolab/people/hoppie
Philip Polstra
Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> I am sure even you will agree that this is an isolated incident. Read
> real people think about Windows 95. (And by the way, a key design
> goal of Win95 was backward compatibility. If you want a more robust
> system switch to Windows NT.)
>
Real people have real problems with Windows 95. As a consultant I work
at many different places and I have yet to see a company deploy Windows
95 enterprisewide, and EVERY company that has any Windows 95 machines
has problems. Why even my home copy of 95 crashes constantly, and gives
me an error (complete with call the vendor message) when trying to shut
down spool32 nearly every time I shutdown.
> : The tools which we take for granted on Unix like truss were totally
> : absent on the Windows platform.
>
> Stop thinking like a techie nerd and start thinking like your customers.
> This is the biggest problem with Unix people. With this kind of
> attitude you can only sell your systems to other nerds, not to regular
> human beings.
>
How does the inclusion of useful tools make an operating system more
popular to the non-nerd population. They will ignore the tools they
don't understand, while the nerd will still by the OS because it is
powerful.
> Meanwhile the Redmond folks have caught up. They now have a powerful
> OS comparable in sophistication to anything from Sun. And the key
> differenciator is that they have a modern user interface. By
> comparison Sun's command line looks awfully primitive, like something
> from the stone age.
>
May I assume you aren't running the new CDE? If you are comparing
apples to apples compare ksh (or whatever you use) to the NT command
line. Ksh has alot more functionality.
> I and all my coworkers administer our Windows NT machines all by
> ourselves. But when it comes to the Solaris boxes, like everybody else
> in the world, we have the sysadmins fix the problem. We have no PC
> sysadmins but we have a large Unix sysadmin group.
>
At one of the companies I work for their situation is the exact
oposite. They have a totally unmanagable NT/Novell/WFW network with a
team of support people trying to get it to work. They are crippled by
the excessive downtime of this network. At the same time they have only
ONE Unix admin to administer 6 Unix servers, which are always up.
Another company has hundreds of thousands of dollars in Unix servers,
and only one admin. Perhaps your company should rethink its hiring
process if your team of admins can't do the job of one individual.
--
Phil Polstra
ppol...@inetnow.net
http://www.inetnow.net/~ppolstra
Peter L. Berghold
raj...@netcom.com (Rajeev Karunakaran) had this to say Sat, 31 Aug
1996 05:04:02 GMT :
>Fred Zlotnick (fr...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
>and use Windows NT. Sun just hasn't kept up. If you have a Solaris
>workstation on your desk you better have an experienced sysadmin
person
>on hand to fix problems. Even many Sun engineers can't install and
>administer Solaris without help.
Boy! As much of a UNIX bigot as I tend to be I have to agree with
that sentiment! Gee... I guess that is why I can always stay
employed!
On the other hand.. I disagree that NT or any other PC environment is
that cut and dried. If that were the case, then why does the MIS
department that I work for have twice as many PC oriented specialists
on the payroll than UNIX specialists? The answer: While PCs related
applications and OSes tend to be easy to install (if loading floppys
and/or CDROMS is *really* installation) making the desktops behave
thimeselves in a corporate environment is a fine art.
{flame proof underware on} It is my observation as well that the
typical PC user *tends* to be less sophisticated than the average UNIX
workstation user as well... Less sophisticated user, more problems...
If you don't believe me: here is an actual call that came into our
helpdesk: "Can you help me?? I'm installing this program and it said
to hit the 'any' key but I can't find it..."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter L. Berghold + pet...@superlink.net+ TCG -- MIS Dept +
http://mars.superlink.net/~peterb + Sr. Unix Specialist +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter L. Berghold
lin...@positive.eng.sun.com (Peter van der Linden) had this to say 31
Aug 1996 17:03:53 GMT :
>trying to interest others in fixing the problems. Guess what? They
>did! Installation has improved dramatically with every successive
>release. Get this: even *managers* commonly install their own
>workstation OS now. ANd it continue to improve all the time.
Well... let me add to that... with JumpStart I can now have my
developers (who trash their machines on a regular basis) rebuild their
machines to a known configuration without my intervention! Neat...
huh!
Peter L. Berghold
>I am sure even you will agree that this is an isolated incident. Read
Rajeev! Give me a break! As I said in another post, the MIS
department that I am on the staff of has TWICE as many PC specialists
as UNIX specialists! Why? Twice as many problems occur on the PCs
as do on the UNIX workstations PER WORKSTATION! We keep regular
statistics on this issue via our trouble ticketing system.
As far as Windoze Not There is concerned, one of my managers has had
an NT machine home now for six months. He is attempting to get it to
run with our MIS Standard Application Load and has had very mixed
success. Worse than that, we cannot get any of the locally developed
client:server applications to work reliably on the NT platform. It is
an MIS department's worst nightmare!
Don't get me wrong here... For my own personal use I'd love to load up
NT. I'd love to get the full power out of my PC desktop and run in
full 32 bit mode. But if I am to be able to work from home and use
the MIS application suite I have to stick with 16 bit WinDoze for
now...
Steve Cole
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> Now they are fast capturing market on the server side. A lot of people
Interesting. Last month (as our first month as a Sun reseller), we sold
12 Sun machines, 10 of which were Netras. In all but one sale, the
systems were chosen over NT solutions. It's all in the perception,
reality can be very different.
You may be somewhat right that some people really do need additional
handholding but my personal feeling is that many companies *want* their
servers to be secretive, and certainly many technicians will try to get
them it because of job security. It depends on who you're dealing with,
the relative intelligence of the company brain trust and the need at hand.
Also, ease is a perception. I find it extrememly easy to configure my Sun
machines because I've done it repeatedly. In fact, I can configure a
stock Sun machine for Internet compliance (we're not talking web
servers here, note) including working email with MX record knowledge
within 10 minutes from the switch being thrown - and that includes
installation of the recommended patches. Can you do that with NT? Hell
no, you will have to go out and get third party software, first. See?
All in the perception.
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services
|613-549-8667 Voice co...@limestone.kosone.com Internet
|(e pluribus unix) 3xT-1! URL: http://www.kosone.com/kos/
|Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario 1993->
|
|"Through the firewall, out the router, down the T1, across the
| backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net."
Marc Roussel
Kevin Kuehl wrote:
> Jan D. wrote:
> > In article <rajeevDx...@netcom.com>,
> > Rajeev Karunakaran <raj...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > > The PC has changed dramatically in the last 6 years. The
> > > Sun/Solaris workstation has hardly changed. (The change from BSD
> > > to System V and from OpenLook to Motif/CDE is not counted because
> > > those are mere switches to a different flavor of what is
> > > essentially the same technology.
> >
> > DOS, DOS and still DOS. The GUI change are mere switches to a
> > different flavor of what is essentially the same technology.
>
> a different animal than today's. The hardware is considerably better
> (not just faster but also much more easy to use and configure) and
> the software is a giant leap forward when compared to circa-1990.
> Windows 95 and Windows NT has much less in common with DOS 3/5 than
> Solaris 2.5.1 has with Solaris 1.0.3.
The hardware that Unix workstations use has advanced significantly too.
It too is much easier to install and configure. It's not so long ago
that a lot of us would avoid third-party anything (disks, RAM, etc.)
because hardly any of it could be made to work with Unix workstations.
As for software, you have to realize that Unix is a mature OS. The need
for revolutions just isn't there. Unix just works. However, there have
obviously been some advances that aren't obvious to end-users because
Unix systems are much more robust now than they were five years ago. I
see a lot fewer crashes (months of continuous uptime, power failures
being by far the most common reason for interruption) and recovery
almost never requires user intervention anymore.
To be honest, I don't think I could do my work on a Windows PC.
From what I've heard, crashes are still a problem. I just can't have
that when I'm running simulations for days or weeks.
Marc R. Roussel
(rou...@henri.chem.uleth.ca)
Department of Chemistry
University of Lethbridge
Marc Roussel
Kevin Kuehl wrote:
> People have been predicting the demise of Sun for a long time
> now and somehow they seem to hang on. In the past, I felt it
> was because their primary competitors, other UNIX vendors, were
> even more inept. However, Sun has little to offer right now
> versus the WinTel folks and Suns costs a lot more.
Floating-point performance still sells a lot of workstations. The
price-performance ratio of modern Unix workstations on real code is hard
to beat.
Peter L. Berghold
"Eric L. Patterson" <ele...@ne.ksu.edu> had this to say Sun, 01 Sep
>use a damn gui to add 40/50 users at a time to my network. Hell,
>even Novell has gone to a Windoze gui, and I hate having to
>point & click everything. I guess my real point is, Gui's are
>great, so long as you aren't forced to use one. In other words,
>Let there be GUI, but give us a choice.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
{slight nervous tick!}
Well... that is what we've been stuck with for administering NIS+ !!
Peter L. Berghold
Kevin Kuehl <kku...@inil.com> had this to say Sat, 31 Aug 1996
15:16:06 -0500 :
>
>only hope now is Java. Eventually Microsoft will get WinNT to
>the point where it can push the Solaris servers out of the way.
I can't fully agree with that statement. For smallish applications to
mid-size client server applications I would agree. Where I thing that
NT will fall apart are some of the larger applications happen.
The company I work for right now has a lot happening with Sybase
client/server applications. They have had the habit of pushing the
envelope of every platform we've been on. Right now we are deploying
Sybase 11 on SS2000E's with 16 CPUs each. I have another application
that will be going on the UltraSparc 5000 platform with 3 cpus. I
don't imaging NT being able to operate as a server in that environment
or I might have suggested it as the architecture....
Steve Cole
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> 1. Microsoft Windows NT is fast capturing market and mind share from Sun
> and other Unix vendors.
Prove it. Sun server sales are up, not down. This is typical MS claptrap
- we have more, so everything is better over here.
> 2. The reason for Point #1 is not that NT is a better performing server
> operating system, it is because administration costs for NT is far lower.
Prove it. I don't see intelligent system admins jumping to NT. In fact,
MSNBC, WalMart, Dupont have all but abandonded their original plans for NT
to replace the traditional tasks of UNIX.
> 3. The logical concluson from Point #2 is that to beat off Microsoft, Sun
> should make Solaris easier to administer.
No complaints here, but I'm afraid I don't agree that NT is having as much
of an impact on Sun's turf as you think. I think Pentium and Pentium Pro
hardware are, however.
ph...@bolthole.com
On Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:20:38 GMT, Rajeev Karunakaran <raj...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Instead of a secretary, think of a person who knows what an IP number
>is, but is not familiar with either NT or Solaris. Now give him both a
>Solaris box and an NT box and ask him to get the network going. Now watch
>him click a few buttons on the NT box, discover the TCP/IP configuration
>dialog, enter the IP number, and startup the networking, all in a matter
>of minutes.
Now watch the secretary do the same thing, booting solaris from cdrom.
The primary difference is, the solaris box has a one-time gui for this at
install time.
Which again indicates your lack of experience with solaris.
--
################################################################
Phil Brown http://www.bolthole.com
ph...@bolthole.com ph...@aegisstar.com
JeroenHoppenbrouwers
Rajeev Karunakaran (raj...@netcom.com) wrote:
> It is a mistake to underestimate Microsoft.
> Pointing to a few limitations of NT today makes no sense because
> Microsoft will remove those limitations, one by one, in no time.
I don't agree here. In the past, Micro$oft consistently has shown us that
it is far, far more interested in adding features, not in improving what
we already have. People want new things, not better ways to do existing
things, as far as M$'s marketing department is concerned. How much time
did they take to remove a few limitations of DOS, such as memory,
file name length, single tasking? 15 years! Then another five years of
brain-dead Windows. No, I'm not convinced of their speed in fixing
limitations. Why don't they include some sort of scripting language
with NT? A server without scripts, that's what I call a limitation.
But I DO fully agree that Solaris really needs a few buttons and menus to
do trivial things the NT way. There's no reason why there are no simple
(Tk?) interfaces to a lot of things that are essentially simple, just
hidden away in some little ASCII files.
Ling Wang
ph...@bolthole.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:20:38 GMT, Rajeev Karunakaran <raj...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >Instead of a secretary, think of a person who knows what an IP number
> >is, but is not familiar with either NT or Solaris. Now give him both a
> >Solaris box and an NT box and ask him to get the network going. Now watch
> >him click a few buttons on the NT box, discover the TCP/IP configuration
> >dialog, enter the IP number, and startup the networking, all in a matter
> >of minutes.
>
> Now watch the secretary do the same thing, booting solaris from cdrom.
> The primary difference is, the solaris box has a one-time gui for this at
> install time.
> Which again indicates your lack of experience with solaris.
And don't forget the secretary who would put
the brand new box on the desk, plug the telephone wire into
the box, and turn it on and walk away.
he doesn't even have to remember to type boot -net - install
because it is automatic.
And if he wanted to install NT, he has to answer 493
questions scattered throughout the install, so he can't
even go and lick some envelopes because the next popup
prompt might occur and the install will stop.
Ling Wang
Robert Atkins wrote:
>
> Rajeev Karunakaran (raj...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : : Often installation and admin is a question of which system you are
> : : most familiar with. Take a look at Sun systems again. A trick gui
> : : doesn't do much. As someone said "Microsoft's superficial design flaws
> : : completely hide their fundamental design flaws."
>
> Heh. That was my .sig. It was originally said of the Sirius Cybernetics
> corporation, but I thought it was appropriate.
>
> I just couldn't believe it when people were running about being so
> excited, praising the benevolent Microsoft for finally casting out 8+3
> filenames. Completely forgetting, of course, that it was M$ who imposed
> 8+3 filenames on us in the first place.
You release this feature w/o people knowing how to use it, and you end
up with people naming their filenames that is 50chars long.
Wasn't Microfart praised as the creater of DLL, pre-emptive multitasking,
SMP etc. Before they breathed those words, it did not exist
in people's computer dictionary or were considered irrelevant.
And I still can't get it thru those 'dozehead's skull what the heck
automount, symlink, no alphabet soup drive FS.
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
Steve Cole wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
[ snip ]
> > 2. The reason for Point #1 is not that NT is a better performing server
> > operating system, it is because administration costs for NT is far lower.
>
> Prove it. I don't see intelligent system admins jumping to NT. In fact,
> MSNBC, WalMart, Dupont have all but abandonded their original plans for NT
^^^^^
> to replace the traditional tasks of UNIX.
!!!
Regards,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
mus...@henge.com
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> Pointing to a few limitations of NT today makes no sense because
> Microsoft will remove those limitations, one by one, in no time.
How long did it take them to remove the limitations of 8.3 filenames,
the 640 KB limit, 16-bit operating systems, lack of multithreading/
multitasking, etc. etc. ad infinitum? Granted, these were never
restrictions on NT, but it speaks volumes about how quick Microsoft
is to remove limitations in their products.
Hitting a little closer to home, perhaps--how long will it take them
to remove the 10-connection limitation in NT Workstation?
Marc Roussel
Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> Instead of a secretary, think of a person who knows what an IP number
> is, but is not familiar with either NT or Solaris. Now give him both a
> Solaris box and an NT box and ask him to get the network going. Now
> watch him click a few buttons on the NT box, discover the TCP/IP
> configuration dialog, enter the IP number, and startup the networking,
> struggle to find out where to enter the IP number, and finally give up
> in frustration. Now guess which OS he is going to buy for use as a
> departmental server.
If this kind of thing really moved computers, Macs would be selling much
better than they are now: You never needed to know anything about
obscure IRQ's to get the network adapter installed. On the software
side, Mac networking has always been a snap. This University recently
had a big push to put everyone (even English professors) on the net.
The technicians who installed the hardware and software all said the
same thing: It took them under ten minutes to put a Mac on the network,
including all the requisite software installation. Putting a PC on the
network took a minimum of 30 minutes and was running up to three hours
in some cases. The Mac is the ultimate easy-to-install, easy-to-use
network computer. The hardware is solid. The software is near
flawless. Prices are now competitive. So if this kind of ease-of-use
issue is really that big a deal, why aren't Macs pushing everyone else
out of the market?
Philip Polstra
Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
>
> Philip Polstra (ppol...@inetnow.net) wrote:
> : How does the inclusion of useful tools make an operating system more
> : popular to the non-nerd population. They will ignore the tools they
> : don't understand, while the nerd will still by the OS because it is
> : powerful.
>
> You see, designing a great product is not just a matter of good
> engineering. There is a lot of psychology involved too.
>
> For example, would you rather buy a VCR with 4 buttons or one with
> 36 buttons? If you are a techie nerd you probably prefer the one
> with 36 buttons. You will probably say that everyone can buy the
> VCR with 36 buttons--people who are not techie nerds can just use
> the 4 buttons they understand and ignore the rest.
Your analogy is flawed. There is a difference between the OS and the
VCR. The techno-ignorant aren't even aware that the extra power is
there, just like some folks don't even know what a command prompt looks
like. The truth is most users want features that they never (or rarely)
use, so many features of products are included knowning that nobody uses
them, but people buy the product because they think they might want to
use them someday.
Steve Cole
On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> all that's missing in Solaris is a bunch of buttons and toolbars.
OpenStep for Solaris. Just downloaded it myself - very clean, although
I'm having odd mouse behaviour - I think it's because a S2.5.1 patch isn't
out for OpenStep yet. Otherwise, the best 100MB of hard drive real-estate
I've spent in a long time.
> is, but is not familiar with either NT or Solaris. Now give him both a
> Solaris box and an NT box and ask him to get the network going. Now watch
> him click a few buttons on the NT box, discover the TCP/IP configuration
> dialog, enter the IP number, and startup the networking, all in a matter
> of minutes. Then watch him move to the Solaris box, struggle to find out
> where to enter the IP number, and finally give up in frustration. Now
> guess which OS he is going to buy for use as a departmental server.
Oh come on... have you seen the installation for Solaris 2.5 and up? The
only confusing thing is that it assumes that you have a class A address
and you need to answer "YES" to the question that asks if you are on a
subnet. Seriously, setting up a S2.5 is dead-simple. Advanced features
are simple too if you know what to do. Here's a list of things to do:
Set up the basic system.
Edit a defaultrouter file if you have no RIP-advertised routers around.
Edit a defaultdomain file if you want DNS. The install does NIS+ for you.
Follow the directions in "man in.named" if you want a ARPA-DNS.
Edit /etc/mail/sendmail.cf if you want Internet-capable mail. (Easy)
Yes, there is hand editing involved. If you're configuring DNS or
sendmail, this is probably the fastest way to do it, period. In the Sun
Netra, it's even easier - configuration is done through HTML guides, and
Sun tells me that future releases of Solaris will be built around the same
configuration ideas.
> Solaris today is like a Porsche without a steering wheel.
> There is a lot of power, but it is not usable.
?? The question is, for who? Any harder than W3.1 to W95 transition?
Have you used CDE or OpenStep? These are good, if somewhat sparse,
interfaces. I can't disagree that more value-added tools should be
included with OpenWindows and CDE, but the interfaces themselves are quite
good and intuitive to use (especially CDE and OpenStep - programs here,
utilities in the toolbar, printer configurations there).
Guy
Rajeev Karunakaran <raj...@netcom.com> wrote:
> The PC has changed dramatically in the last 6 years. The
> Sun/Solaris workstation has hardly changed. (The change from BSD
> to System V and from OpenLook to Motif/CDE is not counted because
> those are mere switches to a different flavor of what is
> essentially the same technology.
why do you possibly imagine that change is a good thing??!?
could it possibly be that solaris got it right the first time round, and
the PC platform changes so often because they've not got it right yet?
Bryan Althaus
Guy (g...@goodtech.co.uk) wrote:
The PC has changed dramatically in the last 6 years because it had a
long way to go. Only today's Pentium's are capable of running a real
OS like Solaris or NT. So what were people suppose to do in the meantime?
Ever wonder why Wall St. has Sparc's on every traders desk? They
needed a fast box with a reliable OS. Dos and a 386 weren't gonna do it.
But if you look at the PC, and since I plan on buying a dual P6 sometime
real soon now, I see a change from 286/386 brain dead CPU to a
PentiumPro and going from ISA bus to PCI as the major improvements.
On the Sparc side, SBUS is still faster than current PCI, and the
current Ultra CPU is a massive improvement from the first Sparc. And
when you look at the Ultra's motherboard and all the mainframe like
improvements that have been added, it's hard to see how one can
look at a Sparc 1 and an Ultra 1 and not see a pretty big difference.
Unless of course you haven't been around long enough or have only
a PC background.
As for OS's, again the advantage is in the PC court because they
had so far to come in 6 years. 6 years ago (1990) Windows 3.0
wasn't out, that meant most PC users were running MS-DOS 5.0 and
using Word for DOS. Remember Word for DOS?? Non WYSIWYG!!! Just
how much money was lost in productivity due to Microsoft is hard
to calculate.
So yes, going from Dos -> Windows 3.0 -> Windows NT is a big jump.
I find it hard to see what UNIX could possible do, to make a leap
like DOS -> NT.
But I do know 6 years ago, the idea of running a version of SunOS,
at home that handled multiple CPU's would be unheard of.
Bryan Althaus
Rajeev Karunakaran (raj...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Fred Zlotnick (fr...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: : On the other hand, I will be the first to acknowledge tha many Un*x
: : companies have repeatedly dropped the ball when it comes to marketing
: : their technologies, and this is something that Microsoft does supremely
: : well.
:
: It is not just at marketing that Sun has failed. It is also at improving
: the usability of their products. When it comes to keeping up with the
: times Sun has done amazingly poorly.
:
It's unfortunately the down side of supporting millions of ascii
terminals. #1 reason why Gates did not let Cutler have NT support
multiple users or terminal support. All GUI, using Windows. Ride
the Windows wave.
I agree with you Rajeev that in some area's SunSoft has dropped the
ball big time. Just try setting up PPP on Solaris is a nightmare,
and since I just set it up for the first time last week I *know*
what I'm talking about. A simple GUI would have been a no brainer.
But, no one runs PPP on Solaris at home unless their a techie, and
your secretary is not going to want to setup PPP by herself, so
I can somewhat understand. Solaris 2.6 is reported to fix this
with a GUI along with other improvements.
But NT has it's own problems. Even with the GUI in it's favor, it
took to last week to get a common GUI between Windows95 an NT. Talk
about dropping the ball. And how about the problem's migrating from
95 to NT. Difficult to the point some companies who favor NT are
sticking with 95 to avoid the migration headaches.
Also, NT isn't perfect. Did you ever run NT 1.0 (sorry 3.1) ? NT 3.5
needed 3.51 and service packs. I ported an entire project to NT
from Solaris, and spent many months with Microsoft tech support
trying to resolve problems from the machine crashing with the blue
screen, process's and threads hanging, the machine going to sleep.
In all cases, it was *not* the code, but NT. It was try this
Service pack. Try this new HAL pack. It took 3.51, service pack 2
and a new HAL from Compaq to get everyting working.
Total time with Microsoft was 2 months. I had direct phone support,
and must have taken up a FULL wekk of one person's time. He even
tried logging into our crashed machine via RAS to debug the kernel
panic's, but the stack was too wacked to be of any info.
So while I agree SunSoft can learn from NT, NT is far from perfect
and I willing to say I have more experience using both hardcore
than you.
Also, myself a techinie managed to use the resource editor and edit
things I didn't know I shouldn't and basically had to reinstall NT.
This was the recommendation of our NT guru.
: Today even naive users expect to be able to administer powerful operating
: systems with ease. Windows NT has upped the ante. NT provides easy
: to use graphical user interfaces to do everything from configuring the
: network to installing new applications. Even kids can install, configure
: and use Windows NT. Sun just hasn't kept up. If you have a Solaris
: workstation on your desk you better have an experienced sysadmin person
: on hand to fix problems. Even many Sun engineers can't install and
: administer Solaris without help.
:
For a small select group of things, admining NT is fine. But just as
I screwed up NT and needed to reinstall so can others. It's the
reason NT has an administrator login.
Are you actually trying to tell me a secretary can setup PPP on NT
even with a GUI? No way. I know because my x-manager couldn't,
and he's technical, and being a big stud manager he would always
admin the machine himself until he screwed up and came crawling
to one of us. The amount of time he wasted having others fix his
problems is laughable. Not to mention the # of times he reinstalled
Windows 95 because this app didn't work correctly under NT.
Yes, Window NT 4.0 help the apps problem, but again there are still
100's of apps that will work fine on Window's 95 and not NT 4.0.
: This is a serious issue. Microsoft has won the war on the client side.
: Now they are fast capturing market on the server side. A lot of people
: who would otherwise have purchased Solaris boxes are now buying
: Windows NT instead. The reason is not that Windows NT is a better
: performing server operating system. The only reason apparently,
: is that NT is easier to administer!
:
Wrong. Find me someone who was considering buying an Ultra server
and decided to go with NT. If anything they were considering buying
Netware and went with NT.
Solaris is a great server to support other UNIX's and just as a
server for say RDBMS.
But if you want to support Windows users, clients, isn't NT the no
brainer? I mean you don't buy Ford made parts for your Chevy.
The admin thing is nice hype to get NT in the door at some places,
but you still need an NT Sys Admin! They are the same price as
a UNIX Sys Admin. In most cases they will train the UNIX Sys Admin
because NT being a real OS, needs real support. No matter if
it has AI GUI programs that can click themselves.
: Now with the release of NT 4.0 (with sexy Win95 user interface) and also
: because memory prices have fallen steeply, NT market-share is going to
: grow even faster (to the detriment of the industry). I predict that
: unless Sun makes Solaris easy to administer (even for kids), Sun will not
: last another 5 years. Java technology can only take you so far.
:
The NBA as become more popular in the last decade thanks to Michael
Jordan. According to your theor, another sport now must be less
popular. But the NFL is still going strong. The NHL finally has
a major TV contract (FOX), Soccer has never been this popular.
Major league baseball has rebounded strong, and even I watch an
occasional Yankee's game. Tennis has never been stronger with
american's like Samphras and Agassi.
But with your theory, as one sport gets more popular, the other must
become less popular to the point of one sport disappearing.
NT and UNIX overlap in some area's and in some cases NT is the right
way to go. For mosts cases, it's we need a server, is it going to
be Netware or NT? We have a Lotus Notes server running on OS/2
that need to be upgradded from Notes 3.1 to 4.1, stay on OS/2 or
go NT? We have X amount of client running DOS/Windows3.1 do
we go to NT of 95? We have X amount of client running 95, do we
go to NT?
It's not like everyone's unplugging Cray's, Mainframes, HP 9000 series
mini's, Sun SparcServer 2000's and putting in place of these NT
running on Quad Intel servers.
And if they are. Who is supporting them? Do You really want to
run your business on servers where you need to call Microsoft for
help? Please, it's the reason why Microsoft and Digital have
become so close. Digital will help NT get into these area's.
Then why is Digital not selling Alpha NT servers like crazy? Why
isn't Digital's stock price going through the roof?
You need to look at the big picture. It's not as simple as the
number of NT servers double last year so that must mean.....
: Rajeev
:
: Redwood City, CA
:
Thomas Wolf
Kevin Kuehl (kku...@inil.com) wrote:
...
: > The PC has not changed dramatically in the last 6 years. DOS,
: > DOS, DOS and still DOS. The GUI change are mere switches to a different
: > flavor of what is essentially the same technology.
:
: I believe you are quite wrong on this. A PC six years ago is quite
: a different animal than today's. The hardware is considerably better
: (not just faster but also much more easy to use and configure) and
: the software is a giant leap forward when compared to circa-1990.
: Windows 95 and Windows NT has much less in common with DOS 3/5 than
: Solaris 2.5.1 has with Solaris 1.0.3.
That is because Windows 95/NT had further to go as far as operating
system sophistication is concerned. From a usability perspective,
you have given no evidence that MS has progressed further than
Sun (not that I doubt it - again, they had much further to go than
either Sun or Mac - but I'd like to see some evidence to such claims.)
: To say the PC today is essentially the same as 6 years ago shows a
: total lack of understanding of what the PC was six years ago and what
: it is today. Either that or by your definition there have been no
: major technological advancements in computing at all in the last 6
: years.
Saying that there have been no major technological advancements in
PCs in the past few years does NOT imply there have been no techno-
logical advancements in general. If you think so, you need to broaden
your horizons a bit. To prove the original poster incorrect, why
don't you just list a few major technological advancements that
originated with the PC/Microsoft - instead of simply judging that
person as having a "lack of understanding". My assertion is
that there have been very few (if any) advanacements to which we
owe Microsoft thanks.
Just my $.02,
Tom
--
+---------------------------------------+
| Thomas Wolf Morgan Stanley |
| (212) 762-2057 (W) tw...@ms.com |
| (H) wo...@flatiron.org |
+---------------------------------------+
Harley Davis
br...@panix.com (Bryan Althaus) writes:
> : Now with the release of NT 4.0 (with sexy Win95 user interface) and also
> : because memory prices have fallen steeply, NT market-share is going to
> : grow even faster (to the detriment of the industry). I predict that
> : unless Sun makes Solaris easy to administer (even for kids), Sun will not
> : last another 5 years. Java technology can only take you so far.
>
> But with your theory, as one sport gets more popular, the other must
> become less popular to the point of one sport disappearing.
>
> It's not like everyone's unplugging Cray's, Mainframes, HP 9000 series
> mini's, Sun SparcServer 2000's and putting in place of these NT
> running on Quad Intel servers.
>
> And if they are. Who is supporting them? Do You really want to
> run your business on servers where you need to call Microsoft for
> help? Please, it's the reason why Microsoft and Digital have
> become so close. Digital will help NT get into these area's.
>
> You need to look at the big picture. It's not as simple as the
> number of NT servers double last year so that must mean.....
In the long term, it's all about market share, not absolute numbers.
If NT is growing much faster than Sun, than that spells death over the
medium-long term for Sun if Microsoft doesn't screw up and if we are
really talking about only one market. It's that last assumption which
probably isn't true today - Solaris is still very high-end and NT is
smaller-scale - but as someone pointed out, NT will just
get more and more functional over time, while Solaris is not yet
showing any signs of moving toward a more mass-market approach.
-- Harley
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Davis net: da...@ilog.com
Ilog, Inc. tel: (415) 944-7130
1901 Landings Dr. fax: (415) 390-0946
Mountain View, CA, 94043 url: http://www.ilog.com/
Rajiv Shridhar
(Response directed only to comp.unix.solaris)
Rajeev Karunakaran (raj...@netcom.com) wrote:
: JeroenHoppenbrouwers (hop...@kub.nl) wrote:
: : For the simple tasks, it's true. But the heavy environments still cannot
: : rely on NT. Try adding 2000 new student accounts in batch on NT.
:
: Instead of a secretary, think of a person who knows what an IP number
: is, but is not familiar with either NT or Solaris. Now give him both a
: Solaris box and an NT box and ask him to get the network going. Now watch
: him click a few buttons on the NT box, discover the TCP/IP configuration
: dialog, enter the IP number, and startup the networking, all in a matter
: of minutes. Then watch him move to the Solaris box, struggle to find out
: where to enter the IP number, and finally give up in frustration. Now
: guess which OS he is going to buy for use as a departmental server.
:
It's a matter of perception that you're talking about here? A few buttons
is all it takes on Solaris as well. :) And come on, Rajeev! The prompt
box for IP number is pretty simple in Solaris. :)
I can report *my* experience with Solaris and NT. I think Solaris' prompts
were pretty easy to follow, and I had no problems installing it the first
time around. Installing NT on my 486 (this was some time ago) was
another issue, however. I had no problem following the prompts, I grant you
that. Only problem is, the system refused to work as part of my network.
It was only after some playing around, and a lot of grief, that the NT box
did work. My NT boxes freeze regularly, and need to go through the C-A-D
routine to get them working again. I think it's just that Windoze users
are so used to their computers freezing up with arbitrary error messages
that are a pain to diagnose, that a system like NT looks fantastic to them.
What's great about a system that installs well, but doesn't work in a
full-fledged network smoothly, and can't scale well?
: Solaris today is like a Porsche without a steering wheel.
: There is a lot of power, but it is not usable.
:
Hmmmm.... how about this, Rajeev?
NT is like a Ferrari from the outside, a Geo Metro under the hood.
Looks like it cud race the pants off everybody; rev it up and it shuts down.
Rajiv
:
: Rajeev
:
--
Rajiv Shridhar // Systems Mgr - Grad. Student // Communications and Digital
Signal Processing Center Center for Research and Graduate Studies //
Northeastern University, Boston, MA //ra...@hendrix.coe.neu.edu
Neil Hoopman
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.960902...@mercury.kosone.com>,
co...@post.kosone.com says...
>On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
>> 2. The reason for Point #1 is not that NT is a better performing server
>> operating system, it is because administration costs for NT is far lower.
>
>Prove it. I don't see intelligent system admins jumping to NT. In fact,
>MSNBC, WalMart, Dupont have all but abandonded their original plans for NT
MSNBC is using Windows NT with Internet Information Server.
Can you site a source of your information?
When I query the msnbc.com domain I see all NT/IIS servers.
-----
Neil Hoopman - ne...@microsoft.com
Disclaimer: Microsoft owns the keyboard, I own the fingers.
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
Bryan Althaus wrote:
> The PC has changed dramatically in the last 6 years because it had a
> long way to go. Only today's Pentium's are capable of running a real
> OS like Solaris or NT.
Actually, Linux (which many consider a "real" OS) will run on ancient
hardware, like a 386SX-16. The hardware may not have been as fast as
"workstations" until more recently, but the capability of older Intel
x86 processors to run "real" operating systems has been around for
quite some time. It's just that "real" OS's for Intel x86 processors
have not been in wide use until more recently.
Steve Cole
On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> For example, would you rather buy a VCR with 4 buttons or one with
> 36 buttons? If you are a techie nerd you probably prefer the one
> with 36 buttons. You will probably say that everyone can buy the
> VCR with 36 buttons--people who are not techie nerds can just use
> the 4 buttons they understand and ignore the rest.
This is real simple. Four BIG RED BUTTONS for the easy-gliders and 32
little black buttons for the power-users. Most new VCRs are like this,
BTW - operate them with the four BIG BUTTONS on the front of the machine
and then fine tune with all the little ones on the controller.
That's Solaris, too. Don't need all the stuff? Don't use it.
> And so it is with computers. If Solaris ships with no shell and no
> command line tools, a lot of people will find Solaris approachable.
> This need not alienate the techie nerds because they can still
> download the "Solaris Nerd Plus Pack" from www.sun.com and conduct
> their business just like they always have.
But you see, you can install CDE now as default interface. And the
installation is all graphically based, right down to formatting the
partitions (inludes even a "AutoLayout" feature for you).
See, we agree that Sun needs more work in this direction. We just don't
agree that Sun hasn't made it possible <grin>
Steve Cole
On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Guy wrote:
> could it possibly be that solaris got it right the first time round, and
> the PC platform changes so often because they've not got it right yet?
Other than the graphical interface (OpenStep will be a BIG thing for Sun -
my prediction), Sun has had an excellent mature OS in SunOS4 for at least
five years, and in Solaris 2.5 they've perfected same for their SYSV-like
UNIX.
Peter Lawler
Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> You see, designing a great product is not just a matter of good
>
> For example, would you rather buy a VCR with 4 buttons or one with
> 36 buttons? If you are a techie nerd you probably prefer the one
> with 36 buttons. You will probably say that everyone can buy the
> VCR with 36 buttons--people who are not techie nerds can just use
> the 4 buttons they understand and ignore the rest.
>
> the VCR with 4 buttons.
Which sounds like having the other buttons on the remote. What happens
if you lose the remote?
My Mum can program my very old video, which has lots of buttons
(amazing, I know, but I spent a few hours patiently with her :-), but
she can't use the multi-function buttons of the more modern one, and her
arthritis stops her from using the remote.
Which basically sums up this entirely stupid long thread. Solaris' GUI
is good, MS GUI is well known. They both have plusses and minuses
depending on what you're going to do. Back to my mother (bless her), she
can use a word processor on an old 'shell' style computer, but give her
a GUI and she spends too much time going 'what does this do?' and 'how
do I do x?'. So she sends me the text to DTP and print. She may be over
sixty years old, but a fancy GUI does not produce a very well written
letter with correct syntax and grammar. I'll always use whichever OS is
best for the job, despite whichever is easier to install/use, 'coz the
Amiga doesn't cut the mustard at the moment in my area of work.
--
Peter Lawler
http://www.tasmall.com.au/ics mailto:i...@tasmall.com.au
http://www.tasmall.com.au/staff/peterl mailto:pet...@tasmall.com.au
http://www.tasmall.com.au/ mailto:in...@tasmall.com.au
ICS Multimedia
PH: +61(03) 6223 3559 FAX: +61(03) 624 0730 MBL: 0419 587433
Suite 11 Level 1 11 Morrison Street HOBART 7000.
Rob McMahon
raj...@netcom.com (Rajeev Karunakaran) writes:
> One Unix company that has come very close to the ideal a long time ago is
> SGI. Three years ago I got to use an SGI Indigo for several months. They had
> a comprehensive set of GUI tools (even to mount a local or remote disk) way
> back then. And those tools were very usable also--there was no half-hearted
> GUI there.
Hah! I can't let this one go past. They don't sodding work. I could not get
them to format my new drives, they come up with all sorts of spurious errors.
"Media size: -1999MB" indeed. Initialise ? No chance. 5MB free, 18MB used,
75% full. They certainly wouldn't even let me do what I wanted with the disks
they would talk to. I eventually persuaded the command line version, fx, into
doing the closest thing the system would let me do. Pile of shite, I'm not
impressed.
Rob
--
UUCP: ...!mcsun!uknet!warwick!cudcv PHONE: +44 1203 523037
INET: cu...@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Rob McMahon, Computing Services, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, England
Bryan Althaus
Rajeev Karunakaran (raj...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Steve Cole (co...@post.kosone.com) wrote:
: : Oh come on... have you seen the installation for Solaris 2.5 and up? The
: : only confusing thing is that it assumes that you have a class A address
: : and you need to answer "YES" to the question that asks if you are on a
: : subnet. Seriously, setting up a S2.5 is dead-simple. Advanced features
: : are simple too if you know what to do. Here's a list of things to do:
: No, I am still on Solaris 2.4.
Why am I not suprised by this???
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
Neil Hoopman wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.960902...@mercury.kosone.
> com>, co...@post.kosone.com says...
>
> >Prove it. I don't see intelligent system admins jumping to NT. In
> >fact, MSNBC, WalMart, Dupont have all but abandonded their original
> >plans for NT to replace the traditional tasks of UNIX.
>
> MSNBC is using Windows NT with Internet Information Server. Can you
> site a source of your information?
I can "site" [sic] a source of his information. I read an article in
PC Week online a couple of weeks ago indicating that MSNBC was
throwing out their NT Server machines in favor of Unix for the
following reason (if I remember the quote correctly): "Simple. They
just didn't work."
Marc Roussel
Harley Davis wrote:
> In the long term, it's all about market share, not absolute numbers.
By that argument, supercomputers should long ago have disappeared since
they have such a small share of the overall computer market.
Robert Thurlow
In article <rajeevDx...@netcom.com>,
Rajeev Karunakaran <raj...@netcom.com> wrote:
>My main points are --
>1. Microsoft Windows NT is fast capturing market and mind share from Sun
> and other Unix vendors.
NT seems to be having a good run right now, yes. Despite its
problems, the Microsoft machine has hyped it quite successfully.
>2. The reason for Point #1 is not that NT is a better performing server
> operating system, it is because administration costs for NT is far lower.
I think this is hooey. The reason that NT sells is because it
works well with WfW/Win95/WinNT clients, which are popular as
anything. Making these clients fly properly in a Unix network
is harder than just installing WinNT, but maintaining NT once
running is, I think, a poison pill that people don't know about
until they have it running and it's too late.
>3. The logical concluson from Point #2 is that to beat off Microsoft, Sun
> should make Solaris easier to administer.
There are a number of things Sun has to do to beat Microsoft, and
I will concede that this is one of them. But guess what - we've been
working towards this. Have you seen our Netra server? Half an hour
from power switch to on the network, with all configuration done by
a Web browser? That's ease of administration. But of course, you're
running Solaris 2.4, so you'll not even credit us with what we've done
right recently.
Taking away the shell and criticizing Peter for wanting a diagnostic
tool like "truss" are not "ease of use" ideas, they're stupid ideas.
Don't call us about a product marketing job, we'll call you.
Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thu...@eng.sun.com
There was something fishy about the butler. I think he was a Pisces,
probably working for scale. -- Nick Danger, Third Eye
Tariq Ahmed
tcom.com> <322C93...@henri.chem.uleth.ca>:
Distribution: inet
Marc Roussel (rou...@henri.chem.uleth.ca) wrote:
: If this kind of thing really moved computers, Macs would be selling much
: better than they are now: You never needed to know anything about
: obscure IRQ's to get the network adapter installed.
The #1 reason why MAC's died, and the eventual death of UNIX
is the proprietaryness of it all. HP says to use their RAM, Sun says to
use their RAM, their controller, their equipment. No competition, no
choice, inflated prices. RAM is $3.50/meg, it's like $65+ from HP/Sun.
I want a better video card, 1280X1024X24bit, go out and get a $400
ATI 4meg VRAM card. Double click on the install drivers thing, bang it's
done. Oh too bad for HP/Sparc, you can't even change your video card. Or
put in a faster hard drive controller, or network card, etc...
Had a $200 Snappy parallel port digitizer, wanted a better one, so got
a $500 MIRO full motion video capture board, so I can connect to
CUSEE ME and video conf on the web. Nothing like this exists for UNIX
machines, for a reasonable cost.
UNIX is 100% vertical market. I'd like a show of hands of who here
has a $20 000 Sparc on their desk at home, that they bought themselves?
Before you needed UNIX machines, because 286's and 386's just didn't have
the power. But multiprocessor P5's and P6's blow the doors off any UNIX
WS, at a small fRACTION of the price. My God, the unearthly awesome system
you can get for $2500-3000.
Tariq Ahmed
tcom.com> <322C7763...@henge.com>:
Distribution: inet
: How long did it take them to remove the limitations of 8.3 filenames,
: the 640 KB limit, 16-bit operating systems, lack of multithreading/
: multitasking, etc. etc. ad infinitum? Granted, these were never
: restrictions on NT, but it speaks volumes about how quick Microsoft
: is to remove limitations in their products.
It's called transition. Microsoft still wants it's customers
to have compatibilty with the older software that they have spent
billions on (customer base as a whole).
It's easy for UNIX users to point time problems with Microsoft.
But UNIX is such a simplistic OS, that it's still the same as when it
came out. The apps still remain archaic vt100 text based, or the gross
looking pastel Motif look (unix users must love monotone, feel more
at home with the vax monochrome vt100 terminals). NT4.0, just incredible
what it does behind the scenes. CDE is such a joke, no drag and drop,
endless amounts of configuration files.
And the amount you spend on a workstation. Holy God, I expect way
more then "Install Icon" 4 years away from the year 2000.
: Hitting a little closer to home, perhaps--how long will it take them
: to remove the 10-connection limitation in NT Workstation?
0 seconds. They already removed it.
Tariq Ahmed
tcom.com> <Pine.GSO.3.95.960903...@mercury.kosone.com>:
Distribution: inet
Steve Cole (co...@post.kosone.com) wrote:
: Set up the basic system.
: Edit a defaultrouter file if you have no RIP-advertised routers around.
: Edit a defaultdomain file if you want DNS. The install does NIS+ for you.
: Follow the directions in "man in.named" if you want a ARPA-DNS.
: Edit /etc/mail/sendmail.cf if you want Internet-capable mail. (Easy)
Easy? Sendmail is a 1300 line file:
Mx400, P=/usr/lib/x400/x4mailer, F=CDMFmn, S=14, R=24, A=x4mailer -f $g $u
This is not easy. Whoever wrote sendmail is an idiot. Why can't
Sun, when it gives you a $25000 workstation, give you just a simple admin
tool where you can have a menuized autoconfiguring GUI tool.
: Netra, it's even easier - configuration is done through HTML guides, and
: Sun tells me that future releases of Solaris will be built around the same
: configuration ideas.
Talk about Windows taking it's time to evolve... Solaris is
coming out with configuration guides in the FUTURE.
Harley Davis
Marc Roussel <rou...@henri.chem.uleth.ca> writes:
> Harley Davis wrote:
> > In the long term, it's all about market share, not absolute numbers.
>
> By that argument, supercomputers should long ago have disappeared since
> they have such a small share of the overall computer market.
Incorrect. Markets have a more precise definition than you believe.
The fact is that there is no overall computer market. The guy who's
gonna buy a supercomputer is not even going to look at a Gateway 2000,
and vice versa.
The market share theory (which is standard marketing theory, BTW, not
much different than algorithm complexity theory in CS) does predict
that once a market leader is established in a certain segment, it is
nearly impossible to dislodge him. Microsoft long ago established
themselves as the leader in the desktop OS market (vs. various losers
at the beginning and MacOS now), and are now pushing for total
dominance of the departmental/Web server OS market, and will then try
for the corporate server OS market. The last is the only place Sun
still has a chance, since MS is not yet a market leader there. But
there is no special reason at this point to think they will fail to
win there as they have won everywhere else they wanted to.
Franklin Schmidt
Robert Thurlow wrote:
>
> In article <rajeevDx...@netcom.com>,
> Rajeev Karunakaran <raj...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >3. The logical concluson from Point #2 is that to beat off Microsoft, Sun
> > should make Solaris easier to administer.
>
> There are a number of things Sun has to do to beat Microsoft, and
> I will concede that this is one of them. But guess what - we've been
> working towards this. Have you seen our Netra server? Half an hour
> from power switch to on the network, with all configuration done by
> a Web browser? That's ease of administration. But of course, you're
> running Solaris 2.4, so you'll not even credit us with what we've done
> right recently.
I am running Solaris 2.5. Tell me, how can I easily change my IP
address? With NT, this is trivial to do.
I will tell you the real problem. Sun is the most unresponsive company
I have ever seen. They just don't care about users. Since this thread
is in a Java news group, I will give a Java example. Sun's "Known Bugs"
page at
http://java.sun.com/java.sun.com/products/JDK/1.0.2/KnownBugs.html
was last updated May 6. Reporting a Java bug to Sun is a waste of
time. One never gets any feedback. Another example is the way Sun
treated the Java Linux people, who worked for free in Java's interest,
and therefor in Sun's interest. Sun is the only company I dislike even
more than Microsoft. I hope it loses market share to NT and Linux, and
I look forward to its bankruptcy.
Serge Bureau
In article <322F1B...@henri.chem.uleth.ca>, rou...@henri.chem.uleth.ca
says...
>
>Harley Davis wrote:
>> In the long term, it's all about market share, not absolute numbers.
>
>By that argument, supercomputers should long ago have disappeared since
>they have such a small share of the overall computer market.
>
Is it not funny that the next generations are built around thousands of Pentium
Pro. Don't you see the light ?
Serge.
Serge Bureau
In article <50n83g$f...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, thu...@peyto.eng.sun.com says...
>>1. Microsoft Windows NT is fast capturing market and mind share from Sun
>> and other Unix vendors.
>
>NT seems to be having a good run right now, yes. Despite its
>problems, the Microsoft machine has hyped it quite successfully.
>
>>2. The reason for Point #1 is not that NT is a better performing server
>> operating system, it is because administration costs for NT is far lower.
>
>I think this is hooey. The reason that NT sells is because it
>works well with WfW/Win95/WinNT clients, which are popular as
>anything. Making these clients fly properly in a Unix network
>is harder than just installing WinNT, but maintaining NT once
>running is, I think, a poison pill that people don't know about
>until they have it running and it's too late.
>
>> should make Solaris easier to administer.
>
>There are a number of things Sun has to do to beat Microsoft, and
>I will concede that this is one of them. But guess what - we've been
>working towards this. Have you seen our Netra server? Half an hour
>from power switch to on the network, with all configuration done by
>a Web browser? That's ease of administration. But of course, you're
>running Solaris 2.4, so you'll not even credit us with what we've done
>right recently.
>
>tool like "truss" are not "ease of use" ideas, they're stupid ideas.
>Don't call us about a product marketing job, we'll call you.
>
>Rob T
>--
>Rob Thurlow, thu...@eng.sun.com
>
>There was something fishy about the butler. I think he was a Pisces,
>probably working for scale. -- Nick Danger, Third Eye
You must be the guy behind the new coke advertising, your are the one having
stupid ideas. And it is a testimony of why UNIX is only a vertical market.
If people at Sun are all thinking like you, your dead meat.
Serge.
Bryan Althaus
Jeremy L. Rosenberger (mus...@henge.com) wrote:
: Bryan Althaus wrote:
:
: > The PC has changed dramatically in the last 6 years because it had a
: > long way to go. Only today's Pentium's are capable of running a real
: > OS like Solaris or NT.
:
: Actually, Linux (which many consider a "real" OS) will run on ancient
: "workstations" until more recently, but the capability of older Intel
: x86 processors to run "real" operating systems has been around for
: quite some time. It's just that "real" OS's for Intel x86 processors
: have not been in wide use until more recently.
[Please not Linux. The one thing that will kill Linux are the people
who talk about it all the time. Just hearing the word now pisses me
off, and I used it back with 0.99PL4. It's like using Linux is
the hip thing to do now. Sorry got better things to do.]
Again, try running real OS's like Solaris or NT on a 386SX-16 and
get back to me with your results. I've used NT and Solaris on a
486/66MHz machine, and wasn't happy. Pentium required. I'm talking
full graphics here.
Bryan Althaus
Tariq Ahmed (tah...@on.bell.ca) wrote:
: tcom.com> <322C7763...@henge.com>:
: Distribution: inet
:
: : How long did it take them to remove the limitations of 8.3 filenames,
: : the 640 KB limit, 16-bit operating systems, lack of multithreading/
: : multitasking, etc. etc. ad infinitum? Granted, these were never
: : restrictions on NT, but it speaks volumes about how quick Microsoft
: : is to remove limitations in their products.
: It's called transition. Microsoft still wants it's customers
: to have compatibilty with the older software that they have spent
: billions on (customer base as a whole).
: It's easy for UNIX users to point time problems with Microsoft.
: But UNIX is such a simplistic OS, that it's still the same as when it
: came out. The apps still remain archaic vt100 text based, or the gross
: looking pastel Motif look (unix users must love monotone, feel more
: at home with the vax monochrome vt100 terminals). NT4.0, just incredible
: what it does behind the scenes. CDE is such a joke, no drag and drop,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let me guess. You've been using Microsoft OS's for years. I have used
NT and like it, but only a Microsoft lover could use the word
"incredible" to describe NT.
CDE supports "drag 'n drop"... and runs on other OS's besides UNIX like
VMS or MVS.
: endless amounts of configuration files.
: And the amount you spend on a workstation.
NT runs on workstations? So your point is Don't buy NT for Workstations?
Great a Wintel fan...
:Holy God, I expect way
: more then "Install Icon" 4 years away from the year 2000.
:
Yea, I want the [START] button. I'm lost on UNIX without the [START]
button. Where do I begin? How did MAC users get along for so long
without the [START] button. Microsoft, what a company! And to
stop the machine? The [START] button!! Nice...
Quick question? What was Microsoft's OS/2? Transition? MS needed
Cutler and half his staff to make NT a real OS. HAd this not have
happened, MS's next OS would have been Windows 95.
pastel Motif look? Not a big UNIX power user are yah...
: : Hitting a little closer to home, perhaps--how long will it take them
: : to remove the 10-connection limitation in NT Workstation?
: 0 seconds. They already removed it.
Because everyone went nuts. Just the fact that they do these things leaves
me with little respect for people who like to put them on pedistals. And
can Microsoft come out with yet another standard? Doesn't matter if
a standard has been out for 1/5/10 years, MS will come out with a competing
standard. Yep, gotta love MS. The JAPAN of Software.
Bryan Althaus
Tariq Ahmed (tah...@on.bell.ca) wrote:
: tcom.com> <Pine.GSO.3.95.960903...@mercury.kosone.com>:
: Distribution: inet
:
: Steve Cole (co...@post.kosone.com) wrote:
:
: : Set up the basic system.
: : Edit a defaultrouter file if you have no RIP-advertised routers around.
: : Edit a defaultdomain file if you want DNS. The install does NIS+ for you.
: : Follow the directions in "man in.named" if you want a ARPA-DNS.
: : Edit /etc/mail/sendmail.cf if you want Internet-capable mail. (Easy)
: Easy? Sendmail is a 1300 line file:
: Mx400, P=/usr/lib/x400/x4mailer, F=CDMFmn, S=14, R=24, A=x4mailer -f $g $u
: This is not easy. Whoever wrote sendmail is an idiot.
You don't know who wrote sendmail??? Let's just say he doesn't waste
his time posting like a child, and is just slightly brighter than you.
Also, sendmail was written a long time ago. Basically when NT was called
VMS.
:Why can't
: Sun, when it gives you a $25000 workstation, give you just a simple admin
: tool where you can have a menuized autoconfiguring GUI tool.
:
: : Netra, it's even easier - configuration is done through HTML guides, and
: : Sun tells me that future releases of Solaris will be built around the same
: : configuration ideas.
: Talk about Windows taking it's time to evolve... Solaris is
: coming out with configuration guides in the FUTURE.
:
Did I say child?? I thought I did. What's next Tariq? Correcting
people's spelling? Their English?
Bryan Althaus
Rajeev Karunakaran (raj...@netcom.com) wrote:
:
: Here is a quote for you: "There is a sense that Unix is a more technically
: demanding environment, both in terms of productivity and connectivity
: issues." --Ryan of Andersen Consulting. (Quote from Byte magazine.)
:
Byte magazine?? Let's get a quote from a real hardcore magazine like
PCWeek or InfoWorld!
Rajeev -- we get your point about making UNIX easier to use, but the
more you try to back this up like a laywer, the more you become as
annoying as one.
Charles Bueche
tah...@on.bell.ca (Tariq Ahmed) wrote:
>: Edit /etc/mail/sendmail.cf if you want Internet-capable mail. (Easy)
> Easy? Sendmail is a 1300 line file:
>Mx400, P=/usr/lib/x400/x4mailer, F=CDMFmn, S=14, R=24, A=x4mailer -f $g $u
> This is not easy. Whoever wrote sendmail is an idiot.
I agree that editing sendmail is not easy. It require understanding
complex things like mail domains, MX records and all that stuff.
Two years ago, I couldn't find anyone who could set up that
sendmail for me so I started by buying the BatBook and
it doesn't took long to configure it the way I wanted.
NO, NO, NO!!! Eric Allman is certainly not an idiot. It deserves
big respect for its contribution to The Net.
Now, can you give me a sendmail equivalence under NT ? I have
seen many commercial packages trying to approach it, but
when it goes to handle the traffic generated by a 10'000+ nodes
network, I wouldn't make it without sendmail.
I know people are using other products, but they get problems
with about 5-10 % of the mail traffic. For me, it is not
acceptable. A mail system should be bullet-proof. I have seen
many companies trying to replace sendmail with Exchange server.
Just ask them where they are ?
Conclusion : Micro$oft is just unable to get bug-free software
out of their plants. They are anyway not interested at getting
customers satisfied. What they want is the content of your pocket !
Charles
---
Charles Bueche
http://home.worldcom.ch/~cbueche
IK24, Swiss Telecom, Bern, Switzerland
ph...@bolthole.com
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996 18:55:24 GMT, Tariq Ahmed <tah...@on.bell.ca> wrote:
>...
> The #1 reason why MAC's died, and the eventual death of UNIX
>use their RAM, their controller, their equipment. No competition, no
>choice, inflated prices. RAM is $3.50/meg, it's like $65+ from HP/Sun.
>I want a better video card, 1280X1024X24bit, go out and get a $400
>ATI 4meg VRAM card. Double click on the install drivers thing, bang it's
>Nothing like this exists for UNIX machines, for a reasonable cost.
Gee.. then I guess those thousands of PeeCees that are running solarix x86,
linux, etc, somehow aren't unix machines?
> UNIX is 100% vertical market. I'd like a show of hands of who here
>has a $20 000 Sparc on their desk at home, that they bought themselves?
No, I don't have a $20,000 sparc on my desk.
but I AM typing on a $7,000 sparc 10 at home, that I bought myself.
[estimate on used price, with: ]
[100mhz cpu, 96mhz ram, 4 gig disk, if you care :-)]
Next year, it'll probably be an ultrasparc, unless sun screws up big time.
>Before you needed UNIX machines, because 286's and 386's just didn't have
>the power. But multiprocessor P5's and P6's blow the doors off any UNIX
>WS, at a small fRACTION of the price. My God, the unearthly awesome system
>you can get for $2500-3000.
not that good.
To match/beat my sparc 10 in all fields, I'd probably have to pay more like
$4000.
--
################################################################
Phil Brown http://www.bolthole.com
ph...@bolthole.com ph...@aegisstar.com
ph...@bolthole.com
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996 19:02:26 GMT, Tariq Ahmed <tah...@on.bell.ca> wrote:
>
>Steve Cole (co...@post.kosone.com) wrote:
>...
>: Edit /etc/mail/sendmail.cf if you want Internet-capable mail. (Easy)
> Easy? Sendmail is a 1300 line file:
>Mx400, P=/usr/lib/x400/x4mailer, F=CDMFmn, S=14, R=24, A=x4mailer -f $g $u
> This is not easy. Whoever wrote sendmail is an idiot. Why can't
>Sun, when it gives you a $25000 workstation, give you just a simple admin
>tool where you can have a menuized autoconfiguring GUI tool.
>
microsloth doesn't give you a "menuized autoconfiguring GUI tool" for
this purpose either.
you either have to install sendmail.. the EXACT SAME sendmail, pretty much..,
or buy a third party mailgateway.. and still go through a fair amount of
setup.
ASIDE: Sun, get with the program.. ship something INTELLIGENT instead of
the current "main.cf". something usable right away.
sheesh.
[the main thing wrong is you have to change "DMsmartuucp" to
"DMddn". then add an entry for "ddn-gateway" to /etc/hosts, and
you can use it. but that's non-optimal]
R!ch
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Tariq Ahmed wrote:
> tcom.com> <322C7763...@henge.com>:
> Distribution: inet
>
> : How long did it take them to remove the limitations of 8.3 filenames,
> : the 640 KB limit, 16-bit operating systems, lack of multithreading/
> : multitasking, etc. etc. ad infinitum? Granted, these were never
> : restrictions on NT, but it speaks volumes about how quick Microsoft
> : is to remove limitations in their products.
> It's called transition. Microsoft still wants it's customers
> to have compatibilty with the older software that they have spent
> billions on (customer base as a whole).
Bullshit. They could've fixed these problems *years* ago, without breaking
anything, if they had the technical expertise to do so!
> It's easy for UNIX users to point time problems with Microsoft.
> But UNIX is such a simplistic OS, that it's still the same as when it
You obviously know nothing about UNIX! How on earth can a multi-user,
multi-tasking OS be simplistic?! Go back and play with your toy PCs,
and leave the real computing to grown ups!
> came out. The apps still remain archaic vt100 text based, or the gross
> looking pastel Motif look (unix users must love monotone, feel more
The Motif colour scheme can be changed at will. Also, most apps these
days use an GUI.
> at home with the vax monochrome vt100 terminals). NT4.0, just incredible
> what it does behind the scenes. CDE is such a joke, no drag and drop,
> endless amounts of configuration files.
CDE does do drag & Drop - and the numerous config (which I admit are a bit
of a pain!) aid the configurability.
> : Hitting a little closer to home, perhaps--how long will it take them
> : to remove the 10-connection limitation in NT Workstation?
> 0 seconds. They already removed it.
Yeah - only after threats of litigation.
---
R!ch
If it ain't analogue, it ain't music.
#include <disclaimer.h> \\|// - ?
(o o)
/==================================oOOo=(_)=oOOo========\
| Richard Teer richar...@uk.sun.com |
| Sun Service Contractor |
| Voice: +44 (0)1276 691974 |
\=======================================================/
R!ch
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Tariq Ahmed wrote:
> UNIX is 100% vertical market. I'd like a show of hands of who here
> has a $20 000 Sparc on their desk at home, that they bought themselves?
Actually, I *do* use a $20,000 machine at home - I just bought it 2nd
user at a considerably saving - $3000 for a SPARCstation 2, loaded with
goodies.
> Before you needed UNIX machines, because 286's and 386's just didn't have
> the power. But multiprocessor P5's and P6's blow the doors off any UNIX
> WS, at a small fRACTION of the price. My God, the unearthly awesome system
> you can get for $2500-3000.
Hmm - PC bigots like you have been saying the same thing for years...
Ling Wang
Like, name more than 1 of them that will use the PPro?
Or name 1 commercial system using it that is implemented with PPro?
None would be running NT, thats for sure(which is what this thread
is about)
So what do you think these MPP machines are? a big giant
box with a bunch of PeeCees in there hooked up to some
PCI bus?
Processor does not make a MPP.
Anyway, this is all besides the point, lets get back
to the discussion about how bad Windoze NT is &
how great Amiga is when hooked up to a TeeVee.
Marc Roussel
Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> This is my opinion also. NT may only be threatening Solaris as a
> low-end departmental level server today. But if NT sells well then it
> will fetch Microsoft enough R&D dollars to develop NT into a
> enterprise level server.
>
> Once that happens Solaris won't be able to compete because NT is a
> mass-market product that Microsoft can sell at very low prices.
I think I understand now: We're looking at the world from entirely
different perspectives. You think of Solaris as a stand-alone product.
I (and many others) think of it as part of a hardware/software
combination. I might buy Solaris for Intel, but I'm much more likely to
run a simple OS for my personal computing. On the other hand, when I
buy a computer for my research, I buy the fastest box I can afford under
the constraint that it must run a decent operating system and have good
native compilers. The OS's that run on Intel boxes are then of no
interest to me because the floating-point performance of Intel hardware
sucks. There are plenty of other people in a similar situation: They
need fast (floating-point/networking/whatever) and, provided you don't
try to sell them VMS with the computer, they're not going to worry long
about the GUI tools that the OS may or may not come with. Since Intel
is never going to catch up to the high-performance workstation vendors
(they're in a different market, with different priorities), Sun, HP, DEC
and friends only have to worry about each other.
tahmed
> > It's called transition. Microsoft still wants it's customers
> > to have compatibilty with the older software that they have spent
> > billions on (customer base as a whole).
>
> Bullshit. They could've fixed these problems *years* ago, without breaking
> anything, if they had the technical expertise to do so!
UNIX is way older then Windows, and HP only comes out in the
year 1996 with a multithreaded UNIX? Not only that, HPUX10.10 is
500X more buggy then anything. It's DCE is crap. Daily OS patches.
This is typical unix. You contact me when Solaris/HPUX and CDE get to
the level of complexity in NT4.0.. That'll be past the year 2000 a UNIX
OS has an OO windows manager.
> You obviously know nothing about UNIX! How on earth can a multi-user,
> multi-tasking OS be simplistic?! Go back and play with your toy PCs,
> and leave the real computing to grown ups!
So you can play with your power text apps? Go pine go!
> The Motif colour scheme can be changed at will. Also, most apps these
> days use an GUI.
Motif gui apps are like fisher price GUI's compared to the Windows
ones. UNIX doesn't even have a standard GUI based install mechanism.
Go pine Go.
> CDE does do drag & Drop - and the numerous config (which I admit are a bit
> of a pain!) aid the configurability.
That's so bull. On CDE open up your Application Manager
(looks like a drawer), and you'll see DeskTop_Apps, drag that onto your
desktop. Doesn't work. Drag it onto ANYTHING BUT the "Install Icon."
CDE's drag and drop is a hack. Drag and dropping onto only ONE THING
is so fake. UNIX and CDE do nothing special for the user or the developer,
that is why it's simplistic. You have to manually mount CD's. YOu can't
tell it to automatically play audio CD's if you put an audio cd into it,
because the Windows manager is not capturing low level device events.
God, just try programming a blinking cursor in an edit box in Motif is
hard enough. Tell your CDE to play an au/wav file when you open up
a window. Change your resolution to 1024X768 with 16bit bit plain.
95/NT4.0 HAS all this configurabilty, but you don't need to spend billions
of hours toying with configuration files. You may think you are king
of the world knowing sendmail.cf like the back of your hand, but
spending time configuring your machine instead of USING your machine
is retarded.
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Tariq Ahmed - Bell Sygma Telecom Solutions=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
160 Elgin St. Room 550. Ottawa, Ontario. K2P 2C4. (613)781-9820 F:238-7772
inet: tah...@on.bell.ca IIS: TAHMED HomePage: http://www.cyberus.ca/~ratt/
tahmed
> Actually, I *do* use a $20,000 machine at home - I just bought it 2nd
> user at a considerably saving - $3000 for a SPARCstation 2, loaded with
> goodies.
You're such a looser. You have to buy second hand goods, I
get to buy a BRAND NEW system that will blow your wimpy Sparc 2 for
$3000. Sparc 2 is looser speed, a $3000 Pentium will demolish a Sparc 2.
And like I said, you didn't spend $20000, so I guess all Sparc users
all own used obsolete equipment. Go pine Go. I can buy 10 used PC's
for $3000 that have the power of a Sparc 2.
> Hmm - PC bigots like you have been saying the same thing for years...
Want to compare my $3000 PC vs your $3000 Sparc 2? MIPS,
Mflops, SpecInt, whatever you want homeboy. Pentium 133, 64megs of ram,
ATI Ultra GRaphics Pro Turbo 4MEG VRAM, Adaptec SCSI-2 controller.
Kevin Currie
Tariq Ahmed (tah...@on.bell.ca) wrote:
: tcom.com> <322C93...@henri.chem.uleth.ca>:
: Distribution: inet
:
: Marc Roussel (rou...@henri.chem.uleth.ca) wrote:
:
: : If this kind of thing really moved computers, Macs would be selling much
: : better than they are now: You never needed to know anything about
: : obscure IRQ's to get the network adapter installed.
: is the proprietaryness of it all. HP says to use their RAM, Sun says to
: use their RAM, their controller, their equipment. No competition, no
: choice, inflated prices. RAM is $3.50/meg, it's like $65+ from HP/Sun.
: I want a better video card, 1280X1024X24bit, go out and get a $400
: ATI 4meg VRAM card. Double click on the install drivers thing, bang it's
: put in a faster hard drive controller, or network card, etc...
companies making them-- yes they're not low cost like the PC ones for the
simple reason of market share. BTW, all of the things you are talking about
are thrown out the window when you speak of unix on PC hardware...
: Had a $200 Snappy parallel port digitizer, wanted a better one, so got
: a $500 MIRO full motion video capture board, so I can connect to
: CUSEE ME and video conf on the web. Nothing like this exists for UNIX
: machines, for a reasonable cost.
: UNIX is 100% vertical market. I'd like a show of hands of who here
: has a $20 000 Sparc on their desk at home, that they bought themselves?
: Before you needed UNIX machines, because 286's and 386's just didn't have
: the power. But multiprocessor P5's and P6's blow the doors off any UNIX
: WS, at a small fRACTION of the price. My God, the unearthly awesome system
: you can get for $2500-3000.
:
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Bell SYGMA Telecom Solutions - Service Assurance-=-=-=-=-=-=+
HPUX / Solaris System Admin
Kevin Currie inet: kcu...@on.bell.ca Ottawa, Ontario
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
Kevin Currie
Tariq Ahmed (tah...@on.bell.ca) wrote:
: tcom.com> <Pine.GSO.3.95.960903...@mercury.kosone.com>:
: Distribution: inet
:
: Steve Cole (co...@post.kosone.com) wrote:
:
: : Set up the basic system.
: : Edit a defaultrouter file if you have no RIP-advertised routers around.
: : Edit a defaultdomain file if you want DNS. The install does NIS+ for you.
: : Follow the directions in "man in.named" if you want a ARPA-DNS.
: Easy? Sendmail is a 1300 line file:
: Mx400, P=/usr/lib/x400/x4mailer, F=CDMFmn, S=14, R=24, A=x4mailer -f $g $u
: This is not easy. Whoever wrote sendmail is an idiot. Why can't
: Sun, when it gives you a $25000 workstation, give you just a simple admin
: tool where you can have a menuized autoconfiguring GUI tool.
Of course, sendmail has WAAAYY more functionality than any MS solution....
:
: : Netra, it's even easier - configuration is done through HTML guides, and
: : Sun tells me that future releases of Solaris will be built around the same
: : configuration ideas.
: Talk about Windows taking it's time to evolve... Solaris is
: coming out with configuration guides in the FUTURE.
:
--
Robert Thurlow
In article <50nrhc$n...@ns.rezonet.net>,
Serge Bureau <con...@dsuper.net> wrote:
>You must be the guy behind the new coke advertising, your are the one having
>stupid ideas. And it is a testimony of why UNIX is only a vertical market.
Hey, if you think taking away core functionality like the shells
away from our customers to prove a point is a brilliant marketing
move, go ahead and hire him for your startup. And be sure to let
us know how it goes.
>If people at Sun are all thinking like you, your dead meat.
People at Sun think a lot of different things, as sane people
might expect.
Satish Balay
>> Actually, I *do* use a $20,000 machine at home - I just bought it 2nd
>> user at a considerably saving - $3000 for a SPARCstation 2, loaded with
>> goodies.
> You're such a looser. You have to buy second hand goods, I
>get to buy a BRAND NEW system that will blow your wimpy Sparc 2 for
>$3000. Sparc 2 is looser speed, a $3000 Pentium will demolish a Sparc 2.
>And like I said, you didn't spend $20000, so I guess all Sparc users
>all own used obsolete equipment. Go pine Go. I can buy 10 used PC's
>for $3000 that have the power of a Sparc 2.
>
>> Hmm - PC bigots like you have been saying the same thing for years...
> Want to compare my $3000 PC vs your $3000 Sparc 2? MIPS,
>Mflops, SpecInt, whatever you want homeboy. Pentium 133, 64megs of ram,
>ATI Ultra GRaphics Pro Turbo 4MEG VRAM, Adaptec SCSI-2 controller.
>
I recently made a comarison between various architectures. for floating point
performance, and found that a PENTIUM machine (150 MH I think) running freebsd
had a flop rate 2.5 times that of a SPARC-5 "Some numerical Computations" Thus
for cosst/per performance a PC is a better choice, but If you are interested in
the highest flop reate achieveble go for an IBM590 - best user flop rate i've
seen( arround 5 times that of a PENTIUM )
R!ch
On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, tahmed wrote:
>
> > > It's called transition. Microsoft still wants it's customers
> > > to have compatibilty with the older software that they have spent
> > > billions on (customer base as a whole).
> >
> > Bullshit. They could've fixed these problems *years* ago, without breaking
> > anything, if they had the technical expertise to do so!
> UNIX is way older then Windows, and HP only comes out in the
> year 1996 with a multithreaded UNIX? Not only that, HPUX10.10 is
Windows isn't multithreaded *even* now! Hell, from what I can remember,
it still doesn't multitask properly.
> 500X more buggy then anything. It's DCE is crap. Daily OS patches.
> This is typical unix. You contact me when Solaris/HPUX and CDE get to
> the level of complexity in NT4.0.. That'll be past the year 2000 a UNIX
> OS has an OO windows manager.
What has this got to do with backward compatability? The original point
was about 8.3 filesystems & 640K limits. Microsoft could easily have
fixed the former (and probably the latter) without breaking compatability.
> > You obviously know nothing about UNIX! How on earth can a multi-user,
> > multi-tasking OS be simplistic?! Go back and play with your toy PCs,
> > and leave the real computing to grown ups!
> So you can play with your power text apps? Go pine go!
:-) I use Pine, because I happen to like it. UNIX gives the user a wide
choice of mail apps - and I can think of 3 graphical ones off the top of my
head, but I choose not to use them. Needless to say, I use my text based
mailer of choice in a windowing environment.
> > The Motif colour scheme can be changed at will. Also, most apps these
> > days use an GUI.
> Motif gui apps are like fisher price GUI's compared to the Windows
> ones. UNIX doesn't even have a standard GUI based install mechanism.
That's because UNIX is platform independant. My Solaris 2 box has a GUI
based installation program, so I guess you'd be happy there.
> > CDE does do drag & Drop - and the numerous config (which I admit are a bit
> > of a pain!) aid the configurability.
> That's so bull. On CDE open up your Application Manager
> (looks like a drawer), and you'll see DeskTop_Apps, drag that onto your
> desktop. Doesn't work. Drag it onto ANYTHING BUT the "Install Icon."
> CDE's drag and drop is a hack. Drag and dropping onto only ONE THING
> is so fake. UNIX and CDE do nothing special for the user or the developer,
> that is why it's simplistic. You have to manually mount CD's. YOu can't
Luckily, I have a brain, so I can figure out how to use a command line;
I don't need a FileManager type application, which I find slows me down
anyway. That's one of the reasons I don't use Macs, either.
> tell it to automatically play audio CD's if you put an audio cd into it,
> because the Windows manager is not capturing low level device events.
> God, just try programming a blinking cursor in an edit box in Motif is
> hard enough. Tell your CDE to play an au/wav file when you open up
> a window. Change your resolution to 1024X768 with 16bit bit plain.
Yeah - I can this on my hardware. But your arguments are pointless. You
might as well complain that UNIX is crap because it doesn't recognise
ISA bus cards!
> 95/NT4.0 HAS all this configurabilty, but you don't need to spend billions
> of hours toying with configuration files. You may think you are king
> of the world knowing sendmail.cf like the back of your hand, but
> spending time configuring your machine instead of USING your machine
> is retarded.
And rebooting a machine every 5 minutes is *also* retarded! Remember how
M$ increased the reliability of Windoze? They renamed the UAE to a
GPF, so that in the ads they could claim "No more UAEs"! FWIW, I'm not
a sendmail guru - I just know enough to keep me going. The reason why
UNIX is so complex is because it has a great deal of functionality.
Tell me, how would you interface a dumb terminal (and there are situations
where this is a necessity) to an NT box? More to the point, try running
NT on a SPARC processor!
R!ch
On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, tahmed wrote:
> > Actually, I *do* use a $20,000 machine at home - I just bought it 2nd
> > user at a considerably saving - $3000 for a SPARCstation 2, loaded with
> > goodies.
> You're such a looser. You have to buy second hand goods, I
Hmm, reducing an otherwise mildly interesting debate to personal insults
seems to achieve nothing - apart from displaying your own mindlessness
to the world. FWIW, I don't *have* to buy second hand goods. For the
kind of environment I wanted, I had to buy second hand. I could've
bought a new PC, but chose not to. I suppose I could have bought a nice,
shiny, new UltraSPARC, but it was affordable at the time.
> get to buy a BRAND NEW system that will blow your wimpy Sparc 2 for
> $3000. Sparc 2 is looser speed, a $3000 Pentium will demolish a Sparc 2.
Bare in mind that the SS2 is 6 years old. Where was the PC industry then?
Also, CPU MHz isn't the only indicator of a systems power.
> > Hmm - PC bigots like you have been saying the same thing for years...
> Want to compare my $3000 PC vs your $3000 Sparc 2? MIPS,
> Mflops, SpecInt, whatever you want homeboy. Pentium 133, 64megs of ram,
> ATI Ultra GRaphics Pro Turbo 4MEG VRAM, Adaptec SCSI-2 controller.
Yawn. If a state of the art PC is so good, how come many large businesses
don't use them for enterprise wide systems? Are you seriously suggesting
that (eg) Oracle could run their operation on PCs! Dell Computer uses Sun
Enterprise servers - and these guys are a PC supplier. Sun runs the whole
company on Sun hardware - which is a claim few (hardware) companies can make.
Bryan Althaus
Rajeev Karunakaran (raj...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Robert Thurlow (thu...@peyto.eng.sun.com) wrote:
: : Hey, if you think taking away core functionality like the shells
: : away from our customers to prove a point is a brilliant marketing
: : move, go ahead and hire him for your startup. And be sure to let
: : us know how it goes.
: Robert, the shell _is_ core functionality in certain market segments.
: But in the new market I am talking about, the shell should not be
: core functionality. One size doesn't fit all. The shell scares away
: a lot of customers, and if you don't believe me read InfoWorld,
: ComputerWorld, InformationWeek and Byte.
:
: Taking away the shell is an effective gimmick to eradicate overnight,
: the perception that Unix is hard. If you don't believe in gimmicks
: I recommend you learn Java and become a programmer. You have no
: business doing marketing.
:
NT comes with a shell, cmd.exe. I will forward your above suggestions
to Mr. William Gates and let him know why NT hasn't been selling as well
as it could. The fact that NT people can get into a DOS shell makes
people think that NT is just a multitaking DOS kernel with a 95's GUI.
Danny Aldham
R!ch (rich...@uk.sun.com) wrote:
: Yawn. If a state of the art PC is so good, how come many large businesses
: don't use them for enterprise wide systems? Are you seriously suggesting
: that (eg) Oracle could run their operation on PCs! Dell Computer uses Sun
: Enterprise servers - and these guys are a PC supplier. Sun runs the whole
: company on Sun hardware - which is a claim few (hardware) companies can make.
Really? From www.unixreview.com/backissu/9608.htm :
Even the most motivated companies cannot shrug the magnetism of big iron. Sun
Microsystems will no longer discuss its inability to forgo mainframes. Years
ago, it repeatedly gave promises and schedules that turned out to be more
braggadocio than reality. Today, Sun still relies on mainframes.
Sounds like more braggadocio to me. :-)
Danny Aldham
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
Tariq Ahmed wrote:
> It's easy for UNIX users to point time problems with
> Microsoft. But UNIX is such a simplistic OS, that it's still the
> same as when it came out. The apps still remain archaic vt100 text
> based, or the gross looking pastel Motif look (unix users must love
> monotone, feel more at home with the vax monochrome vt100
> terminals). NT4.0, just incredible what it does behind the scenes.
That's interesting. Both my SunOS (at work) and my Linux (at home)
workstations use an interface that looks exactly like Windows 95,
except I have a number of virtual displays instead of just one. (I'm
not a big Windows fan, but I sort of appreciate the Windows 95
interface, at least). And I have a number of applications that look
more or less like their Windows counterparts. Have you looked at any
Unix applications lately? Such as StarOffice? Netscape? The Gimp?
They sure don't look like text-based VT100 applications to me.
> : Hitting a little closer to home, perhaps--how long will it take
> : them to remove the 10-connection limitation in NT Workstation?
> 0 seconds. They already removed it.
Interesting. Read the licensing agreement for NT Workstation 4.0, and
you'll find it right there.
Regards,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
mus...@henge.com
Tariq Ahmed
: You *can* get a different video card, etc, and there are many
: companies making them-- yes they're not low cost like the PC ones for the
: simple reason of market share.
workstations is stuck with that hardware infrastructure for decades.
So they can charge whatever they want. Yet anyone who commits to PC's,
every component is modular, has hundreds of vendors, total freedom to
go with another brand.
: BTW, all of the things you are talking about
: are thrown out the window when you speak of unix on PC hardware...
This is always the first stage in this debate. Is agreeing
that Sparcs and HPs are overpriced, and not worth buying?
Marc Roussel
Tariq Ahmed wrote:
> But UNIX is such a simplistic OS, that it's still the same as when it
> came out.
Huh? How old are you? Have you actually seen old and new Unix systems?
> CDE is such a joke, no drag and drop,
> endless amounts of configuration files.
Not true. As far as I can tell, CDE customization is done entirely by
drag-and-drop. You only need to look at config files if you want to
make global customizations, and then it's just a matter of copying these
files to appropriate system directories.
Tariq Ahmed
Kevin Currie (kcu...@on.bell.ca) wrote:
: : Mx400, P=/usr/lib/x400/x4mailer, F=CDMFmn, S=14, R=24, A=x4mailer -f $g $u
: : This is not easy. Whoever wrote sendmail is an idiot. Why can't
: : Sun, when it gives you a $25000 workstation, give you just a simple admin
: : tool where you can have a menuized autoconfiguring GUI tool.
:
: Of course, sendmail has WAAAYY more functionality than any MS solution....
functionality also have to have WAAAAAAAAY more difficult ways of
configuring it. So the more technologically advanced sports car you have,
the harder it is to drive. That is a REAL lame excuse Kevin, you know
you can add a GUI that will let you modify and automate the configuration
of sendmail. But the orinal point was that sendmail was easy to configure,
now you're saying it's not. Solaris guys can't even agree.
Peter van der Linden
> I am sure I read a recent article in Unix Review that said "as much as
> Sun hates to admit it, they still rely on those old mainframes."
Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers or see on tv.
I have been in public meetings where it has been announced that Sun
runs its business exclusively on Sun hardware, and has done for a
couple of years.
--
Peter van der Linden lin...@Eng.sun.com Java -> http://www.best.com/~pvdl
Recent Java ad: "Build advanced systems in nascent genres."
-#-#-#-#-#- free() the malloc'd 512 -#-#-#-#-#-
Doug Hughes
In article <322F83...@gustos.com>, Franklin Schmidt <f...@gustos.com> writes:
> Robert Thurlow wrote:
> I am running Solaris 2.5. Tell me, how can I easily change my IP
> address? With NT, this is trivial to do.
>
two ways you can do it.
1) edit /etc/hosts and change it there (doesn't get much more trivial)
2) run sys-unconfig - reboot, answer the menu questions
> I will tell you the real problem. Sun is the most unresponsive company
> I have ever seen. They just don't care about users. Since this thread
> is in a Java news group, I will give a Java example. Sun's "Known Bugs"
> page at
>
> http://java.sun.com/java.sun.com/products/JDK/1.0.2/KnownBugs.html
>
> was last updated May 6. Reporting a Java bug to Sun is a waste of
> time. One never gets any feedback. Another example is the way Sun
> treated the Java Linux people, who worked for free in Java's interest,
> and therefor in Sun's interest. Sun is the only company I dislike even
> more than Microsoft. I hope it loses market share to NT and Linux, and
> I look forward to its bankruptcy.
It all depends which division of sun you are dealing with and which
department. We have good results from SMCC, good results from SunSolve,
sometimes good results from SunSoft (depending on division) sometimes
things get all bolloxed up.
The problem is, many of the arms don't communicate very well, are
run independently, and, well, in many cases don't know what each
other are doing. Just an outsiders perspective on things.
Sometimes they are a pleasure to deal with, sometimes I spit on
the ground and curse.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Doug Hughes Engineering Network Services
System/Net Admin Auburn University
do...@eng.auburn.edu
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
Bryan Althaus wrote:
> Jeremy L. Rosenberger (mus...@henge.com) wrote:
>
> : Actually, Linux (which many consider a "real" OS) will run on
> : ancient hardware, like a 386SX-16. The hardware may not have been
> : as fast as "workstations" until more recently, but the capability
> : of older Intel x86 processors to run "real" operating systems has
> : been around for quite some time. It's just that "real" OS's for
> : Intel x86 processors have not been in wide use until more recently.
>
> [Please not Linux. The one thing that will kill Linux are the people
> who talk about it all the time. Just hearing the word now pisses me
> off, and I used it back with 0.99PL4. It's like using Linux is
> the hip thing to do now. Sorry got better things to do.]
I realize that there are an awful lot of Linux advocates out there who
are more inflammatory than anything else. I don't think they're helping
the advancement of the OS at all.
> Again, try running real OS's like Solaris or NT on a 386SX-16 and
> get back to me with your results. I've used NT and Solaris on a
> 486/66MHz machine, and wasn't happy. Pentium required. I'm talking
> full graphics here.
Well, it sounds to me that your *application* is what requires Pentium-
level performance, not the OS. *Any* OS on a 386SX-16 will run slowly,
but there are *real* OS's that will make the most of the hardware that
is available. I didn't claim that Linux would make a 386 run like a
Pentium, but it *can* make it into a usable machine. For graphics-
intensive applications? Of course not, but who would be running
graphics-intensive apps on a 386 under *any* OS?
In any case, even though you may not particularly like Linux, I'd
appreciate it if you could provide some reasons why it shouldn't be
considered one of the "real OS's like Solaris or NT."
Robert Thurlow
In article <rajeevDx...@netcom.com>,
Rajeev Karunakaran <raj...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Robert Thurlow (thu...@peyto.eng.sun.com) wrote:
>: I think this is hooey. The reason that NT sells is because it
>: works well with WfW/Win95/WinNT clients, which are popular as
>: anything.
>Are you talking about file and print servers, or database servers? The
>two examples I provided--Nordstrom and CountryWide--are using NT to run
>their database servers, I believe. I think the threat to Unix is from NT
>as a database server, not as a file and print server.
I think Solaris is better on both, but I work in the NFS group,
so 1) I'm biased, and 2) I know less about databases that about
file and print. I think we're ahead in stability and performance
for database servers; we've had some customers tell us that after
trying to set up NT servers and having them melt down under load
before coming to us.
>: Taking away the shell and criticizing Peter for wanting a diagnostic
>: tool like "truss" are not "ease of use" ideas, they're stupid ideas.
>Instead of just saying they are stupid and stopping there, how about
>sharing some of your wisdom with us? Many experienced sysadmins have
>explained in detail why a Unix without an interactive shell is not a
>viable system to run their enterprises on. And I agree with them. But
>what about departmental servers, people who have hitherto been using
>Novell NetWare?
Our current installed base includes a lot of people who know how
to administer Solaris from a command line interface. Dropping the
shell is a non-starter, because we alienate all of those users.
And it would get us ... what? Nothing useful that I see.
Now, should it be possible to administer Solaris without ever using
a CLI? You bet, and some folks are working on that (see my previous
comment about our Netra boxes, and below about Solstice products).
>That's a popular perception about Unix. What are you doing to eradicate
>that perception?
Sun is doing some pretty good stuff; if you haven't heard of the
Netra family, go look:
http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hw/servers/netra.html
I think the Solstice folks also have some good things to offer.
Go see:
http://www.sun.com/solstice/net_mgt.html
sys_mgt.html
>I believe that taking the shell out is a drastic but effective one-shot,
>sure-fire method to remove the perception that Unix is hard. (We need an
>overnight method--there is no time to loose.)
It seems more like a parlor trick to me, and I think it's more
important to do useful things rapidly than panic about anything.
NT has mindshare, but I think it's going to lose some luster
when people learn what problems it has.
>If you think truss is a useful diagnostic tool in this market then that
>only shows how out-of-touch you are with this market.
truss isn't available in GUI form, but Microsoft gives *nothing*
like it to diagnose problems in situ. If you think a CLI loses
even when it's the only thing available, you aren't as in touch
as you'd like to think.
Bryan Althaus
Tariq Ahmed (tah...@on.bell.ca) wrote:
: : You *can* get a different video card, etc, and there are many
: : companies making them-- yes they're not low cost like the PC ones for the
: : simple reason of market share.
: Because Sun knows that any large organization that buys 1200
: workstations is stuck with that hardware infrastructure for decades.
: So they can charge whatever they want. Yet anyone who commits to PC's,
: every component is modular, has hundreds of vendors, total freedom to
: go with another brand.
:
faster SBUS? Lower cost and freedom of choice.
osi...@pacificnet.net
Let's really get down here. MS can now barely claim a 32 bit operating
system that STILL isn't multi-user. DEC UNIX is a 64 bit operating
system running +400 mhz. When will MS get to that? 2015? And as far as
UNIX being "simplistic operating system", what planet was that poster
from? I'll wager I can issue a single command line (e.g. one which does
not extend to a new line) which will perform INFINITELY more tasks than
any MS user (without writing an app to do so) can do with 50 clicks.
Ling Wang
tahmed wrote:
> > CDE does do drag & Drop - and the numerous config (which I admit are a bit
> > of a pain!) aid the configurability.
> That's so bull. On CDE open up your Application Manager
> (looks like a drawer), and you'll see DeskTop_Apps, drag that onto your
> desktop. Doesn't work. Drag it onto ANYTHING BUT the "Install Icon."
You must be living in your cave. There is no problem placing icon anywhere
on the desktop. It has been around since vue.
> CDE's drag and drop is a hack. Drag and dropping onto only ONE THING
> is so fake. UNIX and CDE do nothing special for the user or the developer,
> that is why it's simplistic.
I guess you know nothing about CDE, coming here and bluffing BS about
its ability just because you don't know how to configure it.
And once one configures it, everybody could see the effect.
> You have to manually mount CD's. YOu can't
> tell it to automatically play audio CD's if you put an audio cd into it,
> because the Windows manager is not capturing low level device events.
Don't forget this thread, it is NT vs solaris. What version of solaris
are you working on that you can't configure it to autoplay music CDs.
Since you don't know how, you obviously don't know anything about solaris.
>You may think you are king
> of the world knowing sendmail.cf like the back of your hand, but
> spending time configuring your machine instead of USING your machine
> is retarded.
The way configuration works is that it becomes network wide, so you do
it once. Not like 'doze, where everyone mucks around their own machine
and become inconsistent whichever machine you go.
Robert Thurlow
> It's easy for UNIX users to point time problems with Microsoft.
>But UNIX is such a simplistic OS, that it's still the same as when it
>came out.
This statement is astonishing in its blatant disregard for the truth.
>CDE is such a joke, no drag and drop,
>endless amounts of configuration files.
No drag and drop? Have you even used the products you criticize?
Stefanos Kiakas
tahmed (tah...@on.bell.ca) wrote:
: the level of complexity in NT4.0.. That'll be past the year 2000 a UNIX
: OS has an OO windows manager.
There are Unix systems that have had OO (Object Oriented) window
managers since at least 1989. Where do you think MS got all their ideas?
It's called NeXTSTEP and now OpenStep available on Solaris. Take
a look.
stef
Glenn Davies
tahmed <tah...@on.bell.ca> wrote:
>> > It's called transition. Microsoft still wants it's customers
>> > to have compatibilty with the older software that they have spent
>> > billions on (customer base as a whole).
>>
>> Bullshit. They could've fixed these problems *years* ago, without breaking
>> anything, if they had the technical expertise to do so!
> UNIX is way older then Windows, and HP only comes out in the
>year 1996 with a multithreaded UNIX? Not only that, HPUX10.10 is
>500X more buggy then anything. It's DCE is crap. Daily OS patches.
>This is typical unix. You contact me when Solaris/HPUX and CDE get to
>the level of complexity in NT4.0.. That'll be past the year 2000 a UNIX
>OS has an OO windows manager.
Probably the same time Microsoft finally releases an Object Oriented
window manager.
---
Glenn Davies inet: gl...@direct.ca
Imago Systems Inc - Virtual Reality Technology
phone: (604) 681-9288 fax: (604) 681-8705
0000-Admin(0000)
It seems you are really enthusiastic with NT. Did you ever try to
administer a bunch of computers with DOS, windows 3.1 (3.11), windows 95,
UNIX? Did you ever try to get a ppp server for your people? I'm
administering NT, w95 and UNIX (Solaris x86, Solaris, SGI Irix and
digital), and I'm just trying to get all the stuff (printing, backing up
and so on) on the UNIX part. Maybe you are a real clever, brave guy which
makes no mistake and need no assistance, but for my people it is better
to have a sysadm which avoids thei nightmare of loosing data. And UNIX,
hoping you will forgive me, is THE operative system doing so. I like
these pretty pictures under NT and 95, I bought a PC (cheeeeeeap) with 95
and bla bla bla, but my son if you want something done properly on a
network better you change idea on UNIX. I spent years playing tricks with
windows (all the version) while UNIX was just doing it. It is true UNIX
based machines are expensive, but one of my station is just a recycled
poor 486 with solaris x86. Something wrong with teh OS? No problem you
get the patches FREE ODF CHARGE. A problem with NT 3.5? Fine you get it
fixed with 3.51 AND YOU PAY IT. Do you want a better fortran comiler? No
problem , you get the last realease for 1.5 million lira (let say 1000
$), with the same amount of money I buy TWO unix compilers with FREE
upgrading. Do you remeber DOS 6.2 and the 'upgrading' DOS 6.22?
Again, I'm a user of microsoft products but please be decent, don't say
they are great. Gates is just a thief, and the software has to improve
much more. Disc tools on NT, where are they?
Dr. Luca Pedocchi
Laboratorio di Chimica Fisica delle Interfasi
via Cavour, 82 - 50129 Firenze - ITALY
http://lcfs.chim.unifi.it/solid/pedocchi
e-mail lu...@lcfs.chim.unifi.it
phone +39-55-2757793
fax +39-55-219802
Non esistono uomini cattivi, se sono cucinati bene
(Stefano Benni)
Larry Herzog Jr.
> : Actually, Linux (which many consider a "real" OS) will run on ancient
> : hardware, like a 386SX-16. The hardware may not have been as fast as
> : "workstations" until more recently, but the capability of older Intel
> : x86 processors to run "real" operating systems has been around for
> : quite some time. It's just that "real" OS's for Intel x86 processors
> : have not been in wide use until more recently.
> :
> [Please not Linux. The one thing that will kill Linux are the people
> who talk about it all the time. Just hearing the word now pisses me
> off, and I used it back with 0.99PL4. It's like using Linux is
> the hip thing to do now. Sorry got better things to do.]
This has got to be one of the most assinine statements I have seen in a
long time....Talking about a product will kill it?? Word of mouth is
what makes Linux as popular as it is....Word of mouth also helps to
increse the markets of other OS's as well....Who hasn't heard newbie
computer users say somthing like "Have you got Windows 95
yet??"....Hearing about Windows 95 over and over and over pisses me off
because I don't like Windows 95....But I WILL admit that this word of
mouth DOES help to increase its popularity (as you should concede about
Linux)....
So, you see, just because YOU hate a software package, doesn't mean that
the mere mention of it will kill it....That is just plan idiocy....
________
Larry Herzog Jr.
lhe...@badlands.nodak.edu
http://www.quest-net.com/~maverick/
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper
than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to
dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it
judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
--- Hebrews 4:12
Brad Lanam
In article <322F83...@gustos.com>, Franklin Schmidt wrote:
>I am running Solaris 2.5. Tell me, how can I easily change my IP
>address? With NT, this is trivial to do.
# sys-unconfig
Trivial.
-- Brad
--
Until the next disk seek...
-- Brad Lanam b...@gentoo.com
Visual Design Inc.
Have you tried chaning the IP address in NT, do any darn thing with
networking on NT and you have to reboot, because of this reson alon I
tell my clients not to use NT for 24*7 apps
Jay
Brad Lanam (b...@gentoo.com)
Steve Cole
On 6 Sep 1996, Bryan Althaus wrote:
> : Easy? Sendmail is a 1300 line file:
Easy. Here's the steps for configuring your Solaris sendmail for full DNS
resolving and Internet-compatibility:
Copy main.cf over sendmail.cf
Load sendmail.cf into your editor of choice
Uncomment the section which reads (if you have a fully-qualified hostname)
Go to the major relay mailer, change to DMddn from DMsmartuucp
Go to major relay host, change to CR localhost, comment out ddn lines
Go to the section which reads "if you are on the DDN, comment-out" and
follow the instructions.
Run /etc/rc2.d/S88sendmail stop
Run /etc/rc2.d/S88sendmail start
Voila, you can send mail across the 'net to government mainframe gateways
Really, that's all you need to do, and instructions are within the
document. Would it be easier if there was a config program that had
'Internet Compatibility" and "Mail is Relayed" buttons on it? Sure.
Would it give me job security? No.
Remember, this is easy for a qualified UNIX admin. I still hold to my
claim that it takes me 10 minutes maximum to set up a Solaris machine for
full Internet capability right down to the installation of web server and
POP3/IMAP mail. Yes, I do have a preconfigured installation of the
Internet server software... compiling times are not included in that
statement. You can't make NT fully Internet compatible (remember, telnet,
nfs and rlogin an Internet protocols too) without much higher expense and
far more work, though.
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services
|613-549-8667 Voice co...@limestone.kosone.com Internet
|(e pluribus unix) 3xT-1! URL: http://www.kosone.com/kos/
|Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario 1993->
|
|"Through the firewall, out the router, down the T1, across the
| backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net."
Bryan Althaus
Larry Herzog Jr. (lhe...@badlands.NoDak.edu) wrote:
: > : Actually, Linux (which many consider a "real" OS) will run on ancient
: > : hardware, like a 386SX-16. The hardware may not have been as fast as
: > : "workstations" until more recently, but the capability of older Intel
: > : x86 processors to run "real" operating systems has been around for
: > : quite some time. It's just that "real" OS's for Intel x86 processors
: > : have not been in wide use until more recently.
: > :
: > [Please not Linux. The one thing that will kill Linux are the people
: > who talk about it all the time. Just hearing the word now pisses me
: > off, and I used it back with 0.99PL4. It's like using Linux is
: > the hip thing to do now. Sorry got better things to do.]
:
: This has got to be one of the most assinine statements I have seen in a
: long time.
Great, It's September, college is back in session!!
:...Talking about a product will kill it?? Word of mouth is
: what makes Linux as popular as it is....
[snip]
This thread is Solaris vs. NT, Linux has nothing to do with it. We were
also talking about commercial success of UNIX vs. NT, with UNIX meaning
commercial UNIX.
I don't dislike Linux, I'm just sick and tired of the .edu's who no
matter what question you ask, Linux is the answer. What's a good
OS to run your 1 billion dollar business on? Linux. Best OS for
real-time embedded systems? Linux. Best OS...Linux.
:
: ________
:
Bryan Althaus
Steve Cole (co...@post.kosone.com) wrote:
: On 6 Sep 1996, Bryan Althaus wrote:
:
: > : Easy? Sendmail is a 1300 line file:
Steve,
Bad cut 'n paste, I didn't write the above Tariq Ahmed, tah...@on.bell.ca
did. In any case I wouldn't mind seeing sendmail.cf get a GUI. But
if it's going to be done correctly, it needs to be part of CDE so that
*all* UNIX's use the same program.
ph...@bolthole.com
HEAR HEAR!
[crossposted to comp.mail.sendmail, and title changed to be apropos]
I guess I could have also crossposted to the cde newsgroup, but I think
that would be just a little too far :-)
--
################################################################
Phil Brown http://www.bolthole.com
ph...@bolthole.com
Larry Herzog Jr.
> : This has got to be one of the most assinine statements I have seen in a
> : long time.
>
> Great, It's September, college is back in session!!
First off, I'm NOT a college student....I work for the the
TeleCommunications Dept. at the University of North Dakota....
Secondly, I am a SOLARIS user....That's why I read this newsgroup....
I absolutely agree with you that there is a tendency among certain
individuals to lift up Linux as the king of OS's and declare it the
best....I, on the other hand, do not hold this position....I was simply
responding to the statement about how talking about Linux is killing its
popularity....
Maybe people cut their teeth on Linux and that is good....It helps to
bring more users into the UN*X community and that is not at all a bad
thing....
> I don't dislike Linux, I'm just sick and tired of the .edu's who no
> matter what question you ask, Linux is the answer. What's a good
> OS to run your 1 billion dollar business on? Linux. Best OS for
> real-time embedded systems? Linux. Best OS...Linux.
I agree totally with you on this point....But don't classify me in this
category....Remember not only students use '.edu' addresses....Us
faculty/staff types do as well....
I don't knock commercial UNIX OS's, they are my livelihood....
Steve Cole
On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Philip Polstra wrote:
> Your analogy is flawed. There is a difference between the OS and the
> VCR. The techno-ignorant aren't even aware that the extra power is
> there, just like some folks don't even know what a command prompt looks
> like. The truth is most users want features that they never (or rarely)
> use, so many features of products are included knowning that nobody uses
> them, but people buy the product because they think they might want to
> use them someday.
I agree, this is where Rajeev's philosophy falls down. I agree with him
totally that UNIX systems need a more comprehensive GUI with better
administration tools (UNIX *NEEDS* Cygnus Ed and Directory Opus, released
on the Amiga - both unmatched elsewhere). However, there's no reason to
lose the shell to do it... the thing to do is hide the shell like mad by
providing an administrative framework and complementary tools to the end
user. Ideally, this would be done in Java so that there's no reason to
recode it for any version of Solaris (may be too slow, but I'll bet that's
what will happen).
Steve Cole
Ah, another intelligent, courteous Bell Canada employee.
Ling Wang
Visual Design Inc. wrote:
>
> Have you tried chaning the IP address in NT, do any darn thing with
> networking on NT and you have to reboot, because of this reson alon I
> tell my clients not to use NT for 24*7 apps
>
> Jay
>
> : >I am running Solaris 2.5. Tell me, how can I easily change my IP
> : >address? With NT, this is trivial to do.
So tell me how many steps it is to do change the ip addr on an NT?
With Solaris 1 step
# ifconfig $interface $ip netmask + broadcast +
(Now you can add this piece of knowledge to the few things you know
about solaris)
On the fly too. Non of that reboot stuff everytime you make some
changes
that happens to NT.
I had to write a failover script for a host-raid-host configuration.
(Clustering for those NT people who thinks that's what this is)
It had to be fast w/
failure detection & duplicable
interface IP & MAC reconfiguration
fs check, log rollback & mount
db start & log rollback
db replication startup
The failover starts within 30secs w/o a single reboot of any machine.
(execpt for the finishing up of the db rollback)
I can't even think of doing this with 'dozeNT
Art Walker
On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 13:47:51 -0600, Jeremy L. Rosenberger <mus...@henge.com>
wrote:
[regarding the Windows NT Workstation 4.0 10-connection limit]
>Interesting. Read the licensing agreement for NT Workstation 4.0, and
>you'll find it right there.
Read the find print on the back of the package - you'll see it there too.
- Art