On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> To those who are not aware, "Solaris 2.6" would be "Solaris 6" under >> the current nomenclature. > > Actually, Solaris 2.6 is 2.6. Solaris 2.7 became just Solaris 7.
Lame response. Obviously, if 2.7 = 7, 2.8 = 8, 2.9 = 9, and 2.10 = 10, then 2.6 = 6. Point being that 2.6 to 10 is four major releases, not eight. > And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x. Right. 1.x = classic SunOS and 2.x = present-day Solaris. Which is why they dropped the 2. prefix in the first place; they realized it was a lame idea. Solaris was stuck on 2.x forever. So why bother with the 2.x? (Same problem Linux kernel has, incidentally.) >> I suspect a better comparison would be RHEL 2.1 on RHEL 5.0. > > Heck, RedHat 6.0 to RedHat 9. Not apples to apples. RHL was not advertised as a long lifecycle OS. RHEL is. I still suspect Solaris does a lot better in this area (for the appropriate definitions of "better"), I'm just curious how well (or poorly) RHEL does. Or Debian Stable, for that matter. > Heck, you can see where Windows might have advantages. I kinda like the Pinball game that comes with Win XP... ;-) -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
