Re: [UUG/MLUG] Solaris Source to be released.

["Dick Cravens" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

The test installations of Solaris/Intel we ran at Datastorm R&D in 1994-95 showed
minimal if not zero evidence of hardware compatibility issues on the equipment of
that time (late 486s/early Pentiums). I didn't install them personally, but the dude
one cube over did, and he didn't bark much. I can't speak to later ports, but I
suspect a company like Sun is usually pretty prepared on such support issues before
they release a product into corporate markets, which is where that one was targeted.

We ended up settling on FreeBSD for our internal servers for SLIP/PPP testing. Bet
you can guess why.

Jeremiah Johnson wrote:

> perhaps it was written with portable code, and the platform dependent
> things like hard disk drivers were not ported, but were original for each
> platform.  I'm not saying this is how it was, but this would certainly be
> the way I would do it.  I suppose that the chances of this being true are
> pretty close to the chances of the entire codebase being ported.  Food for
> thought.
>
> -Jeremiah Johnson
>
> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Keith Kleiner wrote:
>
> >
> >This may be true:  Solaris x86 may have been around longer than Linux.
> >However, I still argue that it was ported over, rather than built from the
> >ground up like Linux, and this seems to me to mean that Solaris x86 might
> >not work as good as it should on x86.  Ryan Dooley had Solaris on an x86
> >with 64mb ram and it ran REALLY slow as I recall.
> >
> >-keith
> >
> >On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, David Lloyd wrote:
> >
> >> I thought Solaris x86 had been around about as long, if not longer, than
> >> Linux.  Not to say that I'd choose Solaris over Linux (personally, I just
> >> don't like it--try to argue with that logic), but I think that it's
> >> reasonably stable and usable on Intel platforms.  For a corporation to
> >> release a product like that, it's got to be pretty stable.
> >>
> >> Dave Lloyd
> >>
> >> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Keith Kleiner wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think it is hard to tell the implications at this point.  Solaris
> >> > certainly has an abundance of excellent code!  However, Solaris was
> >> > not built from the ground up for the intel x86 architecture and its
> >> > peripherals like linux was.  Hence, from my perspective, it seems like
> >> > Solaris would need some major modification and updates before it would be
> >> > ready to take PC's by storm and compete with Linux, FreeBSD, and others.
> >> > Whatever happens, it seems clear to me that the end user will benefit
> >> > because now there will be that much more excellent code on the table to
> >> > choose from.
> >> >
> >> > -keith
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Bradshaw, Neil P. (UMC-Student) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > This is kind of heavy. Solaris is a big company, and for them to be
> >> > > releasing their source code is even bigger. I was reading an artice linked
> >> > > from Slashdot that the implications of this could severly hurt the rising
> >> > > popularity of Linux.
> >> > >
> >> > > Here's the text I am refering to:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MichaelWhitmore/MichaelWhitmore2.html
> >> > >
> >> > > Anybody have any thoughts on this?
> >> > >
> >> > > -- Neil Bradshaw
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >