In a message dated: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:26:37 EDT
"Matthew J. Brodeur" said:
>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> What do mean by that? Solaris is still on 2.x, 2.9 just got released?
>>
>> (Remember, it's only the output of 'uname' that matters, since we
>> tech weenies never pa
Paul Iadonisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, unless Sun plans on having 'uname -r' return 5.99 or some such
> nonsense, there is little choice. And six probably isn't the best
SunOS 5.99 would be a long way off, in any case. The next release after
5.9 would be 5.10. Remember, this is not
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 20:36, John Abreau wrote:
> "Matthew J. Brodeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >The important question is what will they call Solaris after SunOS bumps
> > to 6.x?
>
> The move from SunOS 4.x to SunOS 5.x was the switch from a BSD system
> to a SYSV system. So what f
"Matthew J. Brodeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The important question is what will they call Solaris after SunOS bumps
> to 6.x?
The move from SunOS 4.x to SunOS 5.x was the switch from a BSD system
to a SYSV system. So what fundamental architectural change would justify
a switch from 5
"Matthew J. Brodeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The important question is what will they call Solaris after SunOS bumps
> to 6.x?
Linux? (-:
--kevin
--
Kevin D. Clark / Cetacean Networks / Portsmouth, N.H. (USA)
cetaceannetworks.com!kclark (GnuPG ID: B280F24E)
alumni.unh.edu!kdc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What do mean by that? Solaris is still on 2.x, 2.9 just got released?
>
> (Remember, it's only the output of 'uname' that matters, since we
> tech weenies never pay attention to marketing efforts ;)
