Thanks to BUoD (Bad User on Device - is that an acronym only my kids use
when referring to me?) this appears not to have made it out.
Henry
-
Only a few historical rants to add:
Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote:
And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x.
ummm, that was way more
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 18:33 -0400, Ben Scott wrote:
On 6/25/07, Henry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks to BUoD ... this appears not to have made it out.
I always liked PICNIC (Problem In Chair, Not In Computer).
*laugh* I've always heard PEBCAK (Problem Exists Between Chair And
On 6/25/07, Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 18:33 -0400, Ben Scott wrote:
On 6/25/07, Henry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks to BUoD ... this appears not to have made it out.
I always liked PICNIC (Problem In Chair, Not In Computer).
*laugh* I've always
On 6/21/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I truly cannot believe, after all of the off-topic conversations
we've had, how anal retentive the list has become recently.
That should be hyphenated as anal-retentive.
;-)
-- Ben
___
On 6/21/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 09:33 -0400, Tom Buskey wrote:
On 6/21/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
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 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
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.
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
