On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 00:24 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 12:02 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
[snip]
As an example, I tried to find a database which could support
client-server architecture, client and server
Nate and Mike drive home the point that GNU/Linux isn't fit-for-purpose when
it comes to telco. I trust that isn't much of a suprise to those who are
aware of the requirements and isn't much to be bothered about either. I only
mention this because of rabid GNU/Linux partisans who can be
loos wrote:
Nate and Mike drive home the point that GNU/Linux isn't fit-for-purpose when
it comes to telco. I trust that isn't much of a suprise to those who are
aware of the requirements and isn't much to be bothered about either. I only
mention this because of rabid GNU/Linux partisans who
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 00:24 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 12:02 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
[snip]
As an example, I tried to find a database which could support
client-server architecture,
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 10:04 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 00:24 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 12:02 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
[snip]
As an example, I tried to find a
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 10:04 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 00:24 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 12:02 -0600, Mike
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 10:37 -0200, loos wrote:
[snip]
That remembers me the certificated UNIX issue.
A product is not better because it is certificated, the certificate'
only shows it had the money to get the certificate.
It also shows that you can count on that UNIX to have a certain
base
There's lots of improvements in Solaris that make it faster than
linux (eg. we completely *smoke* linux in terms of TCP/IP performance)
but also a few places where linux appears much faster, esp. filesystem
operations. Usually that's because linux has fairly intensive disk
caching turned on by
Management Facility, Fault Management Architecture and probably
other stuff I'm missing out make Solaris a better OS that anything else
out there at the moment.
As many posts showed, Solaris is NOT the most advanced OS.
All pro-Solaris posts insist on reliability (granted), and superior
support
everywhere, be fool-friendly. With this definition Solaris
isn't the most advanced OS. And in this case I don't want to have the
most advanced OS!
You have to ask: Advanced? In what direction?
This is the only question today.
And after you answered this question the only thing left is to ask
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 11:49 +, Yuriy Kuznetsov wrote:
There's lots of improvements in Solaris that make it faster than
linux (eg. we completely *smoke* linux in terms of TCP/IP performance)
but also a few places where linux appears much faster, esp. filesystem
operations. Usually that's
Michel Loos wrote:
As many posts showed, Solaris is NOT the most advanced OS.
All pro-Solaris posts insist on reliability (granted), and superior
support (valid only in a very few countries).
Advanced has a meaning of bleeding-edge which Solaris definitively is
not.
In fact I suspect
Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Nov 04 13:20 -0600]:
And this has what relevance to the thread about Solaris?
Since this thread is already pretty much off-topic for DebU, what
difference does it make if my post is off-topic?
- Nate
LOL and ROFLMAO!
:-)
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Advanced implies being closer to some destination. I don't know if
everyone agrees on what that destination is. Features or complexity is
not a sign of being advanced.
If your goal is video editing, Solaris is not as advanced as other
operating systems.
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 12:02 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Advanced implies being closer to some destination. I don't know if
everyone agrees on what that destination is. Features or complexity is
not a sign of being advanced.
If your goal is video editing, Solaris
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 12:02 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Advanced implies being closer to some destination. I don't know if
everyone agrees on what that destination is. Features or complexity is
not a sign of being advanced.
If your goal is
Mike McCarty wrote:
Well, I may not be the best one to ask, since I've been out of
telecom for about three years. But so far, I do not see Linux
making much if any entry into telecom. Blue Hat has made some
progress, but not much. The availability requirements in telecom
are so far beyond
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 11:20 pm, Nate Duehr wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Well, I may not be the best one to ask, since I've been out of
telecom for about three years. But so far, I do not see Linux
making much if any entry into telecom. Blue Hat has made some
progress, but not much.
Advanced implies being closer to some destination. I don't know if
everyone agrees on what that destination is. Features or complexity is
not a sign of being advanced.
If your goal is video editing, Solaris is not as advanced as other
operating systems.
Excellent answer!!!
Solaris is
On 11/4/05, James Strandboge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:11 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
I used Solaris for many years for serious embedded development work,
as well as an embedded operating system. I've used Linux for just
about a year. All the GNU tools can be
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe napisał(a):
Lovely defence... By the way I hear that loads of server admins tend
to avoid the 2.6 kernels, implying that they regard the 2.4 series
more stable. Can anyone confirm if it's actually so or if it's more of
paranoia?
I had oopses on early 2.6 kernels when doing
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 12:56 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Advanced implies being closer to some destination. I don't know if
everyone agrees on what that destination is. Features or complexity is
not a sign of being advanced.
If your goal is video editing, Solaris is not as
On 11/4/05, Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kent West wrote:
Basajaun wrote:
I hope anyone in the list is more enlightened than me, and can make,
for example, a brief comparison of Debian Etch and Solaris 10. _That_
would be way more usefull than just calling you naïve.
I
On 11/4/05, Andy Streich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 04 November 2005 09:11 am, Mike McCarty wrote:
On the whole, I'm happy with Linux. But in a side-by-side comparison,
IMO Solaris is superior.
No flames, please.
You are wise to include the no flames request. As always this is
For desktops, and even smaller servers, I really prefer Linux. Sure,
99% of the tools on Linux can also be compiled for Solaris. But it's
WORK to do that! Trust me, I maintained a repository of GNU and other
F/OSS tools for our company for years: it's a big pain in the rear to
manage it all
On 07 Nov 2005 08:47:12 -0500, Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For desktops, and even smaller servers, I really prefer Linux. Sure,
99% of the tools on Linux can also be compiled for Solaris. But it's
WORK to do that! Trust me, I maintained a repository of GNU and other
F/OSS tools for
%% Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tl Wow!!! So Solaris kernel is generally technically superior... and
tl what a post.
Of course, that's nowhere close to what I said. The fact that you
summed it up this way makes me wonder if you're a troll.
I _DID_ say that in a few
On 07 Nov 2005 10:04:52 -0500, Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%% Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tl Wow!!! So Solaris kernel is generally technically superior... and
tl what a post.
Of course, that's nowhere close to what I said. The fact that you
summed it up this
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 13:14 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On 11/4/05, James Strandboge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:11 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
I used Solaris for many years for serious embedded development work,
as well as an embedded operating system. I've
Em Seg, 2005-11-07 às 10:04 -0500, Paul Smith escreveu:
%% Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tl Wow!!! So Solaris kernel is generally technically superior... and
tl what a post.
Of course, that's nowhere close to what I said. The fact that you
summed it up this way makes
%% Michel Loos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ml Is NIS reliable?
Sure. Enterprises have been deploying it in huge environments for 10-15
years or more.
ml It seems to me that NIS is being obsoleted, since using a secure
ml LDAP is much more secure. How stands Solaris when using a PAM/LDAP
On 07/11/05, Michel Loos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the major advantages of Solaris is better support of obsolete
systems, which are only being used because Solaris does not support
the better, modern solutions?
Have you been reading a different thread?
Maybe people spend all day defending
Em Seg, 2005-11-07 às 16:31 -0500, Paul Smith escreveu:
%% Michel Loos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ml Is NIS reliable?
Sure. Enterprises have been deploying it in huge environments for 10-15
years or more.
ml It seems to me that NIS is being obsoleted, since using a secure
ml LDAP
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, loos wrote:
Em Seg, 2005-11-07 às 16:31 -0500, Paul Smith escreveu:
%% Michel Loos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I prefer the second version: Linux is a Research Product.
You should said this the first time, and not go around in
circles. You are as good as supporters of
On Monday 07 November 2005 05:28 am, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
I doubt many people on this list have much experience working in
high-volume, financial transaction environments where minutes of downtime
correspond to millions of dollars lost. It's not reasonable IMO to
expect OSS to
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 19:30 -0800, Andy Streich wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2005 05:28 am, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
I doubt many people on this list have much experience working in
high-volume, financial transaction environments where minutes of downtime
correspond to millions of
On 11/8/05, Andy Streich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2005 05:28 am, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
I doubt many people on this list have much experience working in
high-volume, financial transaction environments where minutes of downtime
correspond to millions of dollars
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10
is the most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what
grounds is the claim based upon. I was surprised to see that claim and
has anyone out there used it to testify
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what grounds is
the claim based upon. I was surprised to see that claim and has anyone
out there used it to testify on its truthfullness? Are there many such
claims?
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:19 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what grounds is
the claim based upon. I was surprised to see that claim and has anyone
Surprised?
On 11/4/05, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:19 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what grounds is
the claim based upon. I was
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On 11/4/05, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:19 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what grounds is
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what grounds is
the claim based upon.
Pretty much nothing.
I was surprised to see that claim and has anyone
out there used it to
On 4 Nov 2005 02:53:36 -0800, Basajaun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On 11/4/05, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:19 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
On 11/4/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what grounds is
the claim based upon.
Pretty much nothing.
I was surprised
Basajaun wrote:
I hope anyone in the list is more enlightened than me, and can make,
for example, a brief comparison of Debian Etch and Solaris 10. _That_
would be way more usefull than just calling you naïve.
I read something recently (wish I could remember where and what -
probably
That statement might be a bit bold, but only a bit. We are examinging it to
upgrade from Solaris 9.
It has some new and advanced features that 'I' feel does make it a new flavor
of UNIX.The zone feature, the way it allows PRIV's for users and groups, better
security methods, the way it
On 11/4/05, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what grounds is
the claim based upon. I was surprised to see that claim and has anyone
out there used it
* Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Nov 04 06:18 -0600]:
On 11/4/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what
Kent West wrote:
I've had a little experience with Solaris 10, and so far, I far prefer
Debian. But then I'm not using enterprise level hardware or have
enterprise level needs, which might make all the difference.
This is all I need to know about Enterprise level. At work they got a
new
On 11/4/05, Lars Roland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/4/05, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on the planet? Could anyone tell me what grounds is
the claim based upon. I was
Kent West wrote:
Basajaun wrote:
I hope anyone in the list is more enlightened than me, and can make,
for example, a brief comparison of Debian Etch and Solaris 10. _That_
would be way more usefull than just calling you naïve.
I read something recently (wish I could remember where and
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:11 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
I used Solaris for many years for serious embedded development work,
as well as an embedded operating system. I've used Linux for just
about a year. All the GNU tools can be compiled for Solaris, and
it has a few which Linux doesn't have.
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Nov 04 08:55 -0600]:
All the Enterprise Level features in the world fall flat on their
face when one cedes control of one's hardware to an outside company.
Several years ago we were installing phone switches from a well known
supplier. About the same time
On 02:53, Fri 04 Nov 05, Basajaun wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On 11/4/05, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:19 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hello,
Did you check the sun.com website which claims that Solaris 10 is the
most advanced OS on
James Strandboge wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:11 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
I used Solaris for many years for serious embedded development work,
[snip]
I have to reboot my Windows machines). I only saw Solaris crash
two times in over five years.
Probably depends on what you are
Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Nov 04 08:55 -0600]:
All the Enterprise Level features in the world fall flat on their
face when one cedes control of one's hardware to an outside company.
Several years ago we were installing phone switches from a well known
On Friday 04 November 2005 09:11 am, Mike McCarty wrote:
On the whole, I'm happy with Linux. But in a side-by-side comparison,
IMO Solaris is superior.
No flames, please.
You are wise to include the no flames request. As always this is as more of
an emotional issue for many people than an
Em Sex, 2005-11-04 às 11:24 -0800, Andy Streich escreveu:
On Friday 04 November 2005 09:11 am, Mike McCarty wrote:
On the whole, I'm happy with Linux. But in a side-by-side comparison,
IMO Solaris is superior.
No flames, please.
You are wise to include the no flames request. As always
On Friday 04 November 2005 02:24 pm, Andy Streich wrote:
On Friday 04 November 2005 09:11 am, Mike McCarty wrote:
On the whole, I'm happy with Linux. But in a side-by-side comparison,
IMO Solaris is superior.
No flames, please.
...
As Mike wrote: No flames, please. But I'd be very
2005/11/4, Yuriy Kuznetsov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[trimmed]
I do agree with Lars regarding Solaris being on edge of advanced
technologies. Besides S10 now open sourced (visit www.opensolaris.org,
download and try yourself, also plenty of blogs by different
categories) to community and Sun is
Heimdall Midgard wrote:
I think it's time we emphasize the fact that Debian is not (just)
Linux. Debian also comes in BSD and GNU/Hurd flavors. If Open Soalries
is free as well as open, you can be sure some develepors are already
working on a Solaris port that will make the claim moot.
Hal
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 04:26:21AM +0800, Heimdall Midgard wrote:
2005/11/4, Yuriy Kuznetsov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[trimmed]
I do agree with Lars regarding Solaris being on edge of advanced
technologies. Besides S10 now open sourced (visit www.opensolaris.org,
download and try yourself, also
* Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Nov 04 13:20 -0600]:
Sounds like a crime to me. In Texas, at least, such an act would be
criminal.
Perhaps so, but I'm not in a position with my company to pursue that.
And this has what relevance to the thread about Solaris?
Since this thread is
Mike McCarty wrote:
I'm running on a Compaq Presario 2.7MHz machine. The lockups I've had
with Linux have, AFAICT, not been hardware related, and I would be
one who should know.
I'm not so sure. I mean you are talking to a list on which many people
could provide countering anecdotal
Hal Vaughan wrote:
I just wanted to add -- I've seen at least one post questioning whether this
is on topic. It may not be exactly on topic, but that begs the question: if
Debian and Linux overall is part of the discussion, when does it go off
topic.
Stock answer is that this is a
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 06:17 -0600, Kent West wrote:
Basajaun wrote:
[snip]
that addressed some of this. What I remember was basically that the
userland utilities were far better in Debian, but the kernel in Solaris
was more robust, at least when you get to enterprise levels (of
hardware,
67 matches
Mail list logo
