Since Solaris 10 is now provided under an Open Source license, I thought
it might be appropriate to ask if anyone has any recommendations for
running X86 Solaris 10 on a laptop.
-Alex
P.S. I'm not planning on doing this myself but have a colleague who is
interested.
On 6/21/07, Alex Hewitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Solaris 10 is now provided under an Open Source license, I thought
it might be appropriate to ask if anyone has any recommendations for
running X86 Solaris 10 on a laptop.
-Alex
I've seen people using the Ferrari (by Acer?) with it.
On 6/21/07, Alex Hewitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Solaris 10 is now provided under an Open Source license, I thought
it might be appropriate to ask if anyone has any recommendations for
running X86 Solaris 10 on a laptop.
-Alex
P.S. I'm not planning on doing this myself but have a
On 6/21/07, Shawn K. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86 ...
Okay, I'm curious, and this list has been starved for *nix-related
discussion lately. What's your typical rant? :-)
-- Ben
___
On 6/21/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/21/07, Shawn K. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86 ...
Okay, I'm curious, and this list has been starved for *nix-related
discussion lately. What's your typical rant? :-)
An easy one to
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote:
So one has to ask. What's the point? :-)
ZFS? :)
--
Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.code-energy.com/
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
On 6/21/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/21/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/21/07, Shawn K. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86 ...
Okay, I'm curious, and this list has been starved for *nix-related
discussion
On 06/21/2007 10:02 AM, Cole Tuininga wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote:
So one has to ask. What's the point? :-)
ZFS? :)
http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
Thomas Charron wrote:
So one has to ask. What's the point? :-)
ZFS!
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.gnhlug/9813
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
On 6/21/07, Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote:
So one has to ask. What's the point? :-)
ZFS? :)
ZFS is nice, yes. But does it offer a large enough benefit to
justify a shift to an entirely different operating system?
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A stable API with backward compatibility
A better point to make is the stable ABI. The Linux API does pretty
well with getting old code to compile under newer stuff. But getting
old binaries working is often less easy.
There's a definite
On 6/21/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/21/07, Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote:
So one has to ask. What's the point? :-)
ZFS? :)
ZFS is nice, yes. But does it offer a large enough benefit to
justify a
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An easy one to target is the fact that every few years, Sun decides
to phase out Solaris x86, then rekindle it once again.
They tried to phase out Solaris 9. Solaris 10 was actively developed on AMD
chips. Solaris 11 is being actively
On 6/21/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A stable API with backward compatibility
A better point to make is the stable ABI. The Linux API does pretty
well with getting old code to compile under newer stuff. But getting
old binaries
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:14 -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote:
On 06/21/2007 10:02 AM, Cole Tuininga wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote:
So one has to ask. What's the point? :-)
ZFS? :)
http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/
Right - but because FUSE lives in
Hello Shawn,
As someone who really likes Sun and has used Solaris
for ever I don't see Sun as a choice in that space.
Arguably Sun has had amazing innovations and
contributions to the FOSS community and those are
definitively appreciated. Unfortunately they don't
really have any salient
Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:14 -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote:
On 06/21/2007 10:02 AM, Cole Tuininga wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote:
So one has to ask. What's the point? :-)
ZFS? :)
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 =
On 6/21/07, Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right - but because FUSE lives in userland, my understanding is that the
performance is somewhere around 50% of what you'd see on Solaris.
Actually, the FUSE overhead is extremely low.
Performance almost always depends on implementation
On 6/21/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/21/07, Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right - but because FUSE lives in userland, my understanding is that the
performance is somewhere around 50% of what you'd see on Solaris.
Actually, the FUSE overhead is extremely low.
On Jun 21, 2007, at 10:29, Thomas Charron wrote:
ZFS is nice, yes. But does it offer a large enough benefit to
justify a shift to an entirely different operating system?
I think the answer is 'yes', if your needs are a match for ZFS.
Now, without sparking a 60-message thread of what is an
On Jun 19, 2007, at 13:05, Thomas Charron wrote:
No, it isn't. It isn't a client either. It's a 'collaborative'
application, where there isn't a client or a server, just peers which
send data to each other.
Are we talking about perception or implementation? At the
implementation level,
On 6/21/07, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 19, 2007, at 13:05, Thomas Charron wrote:
No, it isn't. It isn't a client either. It's a 'collaborative'
application, where there isn't a client or a server, just peers which
send data to each other.
Are we talking about
Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When was Solaris (2.)6 released?
1998ish? Certainly before 2000.
I think it was late 98, early 99. I was at Bay Networks and left
there in March of 2000, which was the last time I really admin'ed a
Solaris shop, and we had a couple of 2.6 systems
On 6/21/07, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When was Solaris (2.)6 released?
1998ish? Certainly before 2000.
I think it was late 98, early 99. I was at Bay Networks and left
there in March of 2000, which was the last time I really admin'ed
Hi all,
Someone just asked me if I had ever heard of an Intel-based system
with application-accessible non-volatile RAM. The idea is that OS
could move things out of swap and/or system memory into nvram
(battery-backed is okay) in the case of a power failure similar to the
way RAID controllers
Flash hard drives are out there, that's close... I saw SRAM-based hard
drives once upon a time, but that was so long ago I don't know if they still
exist.
These are small but purchaseable: http://magicram.com/industrial_sram.htm
There are solid-state hard disks, SATA interface or IDE:
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:42:47 -0400
From: Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
As a desktop, I think Linux has it all over Solaris though not as much as in
the past. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages.
From: Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:53:38 -0400
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
Someone just asked me if I had ever heard of an Intel-based system
with application-accessible non-volatile RAM. The idea is that OS
could move things out of swap and/or
Drew Van Zandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Flash hard drives are out there, that's close...
Too slow I'm told.
I saw SRAM-based hard drives once upon a time, but that was so long
ago I don't know if they still exist.
I don't think they want a drive, they want something like a
battery-backed
And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x.
ummm, that was way more than a retro naming.
SunOS was based on the BSD kernel and the BSD code, modified a long time
under Sun.
Solaris was based on System V.4, with Sun ripping it apart and basically
re-writing it.
SunOS was related
This was sent to the SAGE members list today. I urge you to watch it.
Offered without comment, except that my politics
are generally those of 1880:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
--
Seeya,
Paul
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
On June 21, 2007, Paul Lussier sent me the following:
Drew Van Zandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480p=2
Hmmm, interesting... Thanks!
I was looking at these a while back. I remember there were some negative
comments about the Gigabyte i-RAM on
33 matches
Mail list logo
