UNIX admin writes:
> > Given all the other incompatibilities you note (and
> > you missed a few
> > known incompatibilities, like libX11 & libXext in the
> > Preview breaking
> > binary compatibility with Solaris X apps), isn't it a
> > good thing that
> > uname warns you this isn't SunOS, so you know it's
> > not compatible and
> > your scripts don't go assuming it is?
>
> You do have a point. It's basically as if I tried to run my Solaris software
> on a different OS.
>
> But it was such a shock.
It's an experimental set of bits produced by one particular project
group. As with all experimental bits, the project hasn't been through
the process -- there's been no check for compatibility, for
correctness of the changes, or anything else outside of the project
team. (No, I'm not explicitly commenting on the validity of your
specific complaints -- in fact, I know at least one of them to be
plainly invalid; PSARC 2003/039 approved the /root change long ago --
just noting that there _may_ be problems here and that this _is_
perfectly normal and not a reason to panic.)
If you're participating in this experiment -- downloading and running
it sounds like "participation" to me -- then you should direct your
feedback to the project team that created it. Few (if any at all) of
them hang out here on opensolaris-discuss. Instead, they're here:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sending mail to the wrong list just increases the overall noise level.
See also:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/indiana/resources/reporting_bugs/
All projects can produce experimental bits for their own purposes. If
you use those bits, there just aren't any guarantees.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
