FYI
(as far as I know)
SunOS version
Solaris version
Release date
Supported
platforms
4.0.2
none
01/09/89
386i
4.0.3
none
01/05/89
sun2, sun3/3x,
sun4
4.0.3c
none
01/06/89
Sparc 1
4.0.3 PSR_A
none
01/07/89
Sun 4/470, 4/490
4.1
none
01/03/90
sun3, sun4
4.1e
none
01/04/91
sun4e
04/01/01
none
01/03/90
sun3/3x, sun4
4.1.1B
1
01/02/91
04/06/09
4.1.1.1
1
01/07/91
sun3/3x
4.1.1_U1
1
01/11/91
sun3/3x
04/01/02
1.0.1
01/12/91
sun4, sun4m
04/01/03
1.1A
01/08/92
sun4, sun4c,
sun4m
4.1.3C
1.1c
01/11/93
Sparc LX/Classic
4.1.3_U1
01/01/01
01/12/93
sun4, sun4c,
sun4m
4.1.3_U1B
1.1.1B
01/02/94
sun4, sun4c,
sun4m
04/01/04
01/01/02
01/11/94
sun4, sun4c,
sun4m
5
2
01/07/92
sun4c
5.1
2.1
01/12/92
sun4, sun4c,
sun4m, x86
5.2
2.2
01/05/93
sun4, sun4c,
sun4m, sun4d
5.3
2.3
01/11/93
sun4, sun4c,
sun4m, sun4d
5.4
2.4
01/08/94
sun4, sun4c,
sun4m, sun4d, x86
5.5
2.5
01/11/95
sun4c, sun4m,
sun4d, sun4u, x86
5.5.1
2.5.1
01/05/96
sun4c, sun4m,
sun4d, sun4u, x86,
ppc
5.6
2.6
01/08/97
sun4c, sun4m,
sun4d, sun4u, x86
5.7
7
01/10/98
sun4c, sun4m,
sun4d, sun4u, x86
5.8
8
01/01/00
sun4m, sun4d,
sun4u, x86
5.9
9
May 2002 (SPARC)
Jan 2003 (x86)
sun4m, sun4u, x86
5.1
10
01/01/05
sun4u, sun4v, x86
sorry for html, the only way how to send table
-PG
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 08:06 +0200, Uros Nedic wrote:
> Thank you for clarifying this term. I have another question.
> When we talk about Solaris 9, 10, etc., does it mean
> Solaris 2.5.9, 2.5.10, since during the start up page
> we could se something like SunOS 5.11 (which means development
> version of Solaris. Is it here also omitted 2 (instead of 5.11
> it should be 2.5.11) or there are other explanation?
>
> I'm in doubt since many people talking about that SunOS 2.6
> equals Solaris 6, SunOS 2.7 equals Solaris 7, etc. Is not
> right versioning that SunOS 2.5.6 equals Solaris 6, etc?
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Uros Nedic
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale Ghent [mailto:daleg at elemental.org]
> Sent: June 22, 2009 7:36 AM
> To: Uros Nedic
> Cc: 'Laurent Blume'; advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [advocacy-discuss] Software 'wish list'!
>
>
> It is a quasi-marketing cover term for "the next version of Solaris,
> whatever Sun may name it"
>
> Generally, this means "Solaris 11" in the current case.
>
> But as things go, it could very well be called something other than
> "Solaris 11" when Sun releases the next version. Hence the generic
> reference of "Solaris Next"
>
> /dale
>
> On Jun 22, 2009, at 1:29 AM, Uros Nedic wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like if someone could clarify what term 'Solaris Next' means
> > exactly? Is it term for each new version of OpenSolaris, or working
> > name
> > only for OpenSolaris 2010.02, or maybe the new brand-name of some
> > future
> > OS?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Uros
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: advocacy-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org
> > [mailto:advocacy-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of
> > Laurent Blume
> > Sent: June 22, 2009 6:36 AM
> > To: advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org
> > Subject: Re: [advocacy-discuss] Software 'wish list'!
> >
> > Shawn Walker a ?crit :
> >> Note an nfs mount is just a filesystem, so that implies that anything
> >> that can provide files works.
> >
> > Ok, I had thought about that, but... (see below)
> >
> >> I think the word repository 'evokes' some sort of image that
> >> implies an
> >> entire collection of software, when that really isn't true.
> >
> > ... I did think it implied that, thus it wouldn't easily fit on a
> > media,
> > or just take hours to move files.
> >
> >> The version of pkgrecv in the ips source gate right now has the
> >> ability
> >> to extract and republish specific packages from one repository to
> >> another or create a new one on the fly.
> >>
> >> So for example, if you wanted just gcc and its dependencies in a new
> >> repository on a filesystem:
> >>
> >> pkgrecv -s http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev -d file:///path/to/repo -r
> >> SUNWgcc
> >
> > And that *is* nice :-)
> >
> >> I realise we don't have a roadmap that lays out what all the plans
> >> are,
> >> but off-line support has been a goal from the beginning. The issue
> >> has
> >> been that resources available to implement all the functionality
> >> needed
> >> is finite, so the most important functionality was implemented first.
> >
> > Ok, I fully understand that now. I really didn't at the time,
> > because it
> > really wasn't advertised. Creating repositories seemed to be the only
> > answer.
> >
> >> Delaying an on-disk format has been a significant advantage for us
> >> since
> >> it forced and allowed a refinement of the network-centric portions of
> >> the design. Remember that pkg(5) was only just started near the
> >> end of
> >> 2007, so design and implementation have been occurring rapidly.
> >>
> >> Because of the delay, the on-disk format when it is implemented
> >> will be
> >> much better than it would have been had we attempted one at the
> >> beginning because other parts of the system have changed.
> >
> > That sounds great! :-)
> > Roadmap would be nice indeed. I understand it wasn't possible at the
> > beginning, not many resources for that. But now we're getting to a
> > point
> > where Sun is extending support duration for OS.c, and talking about
> > Solaris Next. Having a roadmap would allow some planning forward.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the clarification,
> >
> > Laurent
> > _______________________________________________
> > advocacy-discuss mailing list
> > advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org
> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > advocacy-discuss mailing list
> > advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org
> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> advocacy-discuss mailing list
> advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/advocacy-discuss/attachments/20090622/b051f844/attachment.html>
