> No worries. I am sure open positions in your> respective companies are few.
Not sure what you meant by that. There are tons of open positions in my
company, worldwide to boot.
> Why not? RHEL3 did not use 2.6. RHEL4 is stuck with> 2.6.9 + certain
> backports. If you need some of the> latest features, you use Fedora. Given
> that a release> comes with at least one year of updates, I do not see> a
> problem especially if you have a system that> automatically builds the
> staging box(es) and tests for> problems, changes in expected behaviour and
> breakages.
This must be a Linux-specific thing.
On Solaris we don't worry about which kernel rev. we're running; with a few
exceptions over the years, they've all been stable. Solaris API and ABI are so
stable that it's never an issue for an average sysadmin.
I never did get the "look-ma-I'm-runnning-the-latest-and-greatest-2.6.x-kernel
thing". I mean, unless you're kernel hacker, what's it to you which kernel
revision you're running?
So long as the system is doing his designated function, i.e. providing a stable
service, and so long there aren't any security fixes to apply, why do you even
care? It's the job of system engineering dept. to worry about such things...
To me as a long time Solaris/IRIX/HP-UX guy, the whole thing with the kernel
rev. is just bizzarre.
> yawn. too much work to keep updated. With Fedora,> beyond the initial staging
> of a new release, testing> and deploying updates are trivial.
Did you ever read any of Dennis Clarke's posts and blogs about putting some
Solaris server in EONS ago somwehere, and people just forgetting that it's even
there, because it just keeps on serving and serving and serving? If you didn't,
perhaps you should. He has some fascinating stories.
And Dennis is not alone in this experience. This is something we take for
granted in a Solaris environment.
Like I wrote before, the whole lots of noise about updating and patching is
simply bizzarre to me to read about and watch as a Solaris consumer. I guess
people just assume Solaris is going to need the same kind of babysitting as
Linux. What else am I supposed to conclude from reading what Linux people
complain about?
> Solaris != OpenSolaris. Solaris 10 is not there yet.
What do you mean by "not there yet"?
Solaris 10 is THE choice for deployment in mission critical and production
environments.
> Nor does they exist a commercially supported> OpenSolaris distribution with
> some of the things some> would like to see irrespective of people in banks>
> think.
That you can forget. Banks want (and get!!!) super-stable environments, and
OpenSolaris will never be a choice, simply because it inherently can't provide
that kind of stability, being a code base in constant development.
> I wonder what Linux distribution certain banks in Hong> Kong use. Debian!?
I don't know, you tell me?
_________________________________________________________________
News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now!
http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
