On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:11:37AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >you cant support source only packages and let your users compile them
> >anyway they want, there are simply too many variables to consider. I
> >think you actually void the support from redhat if you dont use one of
> >the pro
> > Rolling out updates can be a lot easier (in my
> > experience) on Linux systems -- it may be that it
> got
> > that way because they needed more updating, but it
> > doesn't change that it's better.
>
> I guess that would depend on one's idea of
> productivity. To me, it's a waste of my time
>There are security fixes, there are
> application updates. Banks already know, love,
> and use Solaris, but there are different business
> environments with different needs. A quick CVE
> search for solaris gave me 20 security issues this
> year, at least 5 of which I'd probably want to
> patch
This is a hoot. About 8 years ago, I was thinking about making a Linux
distro for Solaris admins...
-Brian
On 5/21/07, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this also reinforces my
> point, in a somewhat oblique way. I've
> never been under the hood in a Diesel engine.
> It's unfamil
> For users who come from a Linux background for
> whatever reason, system
> maintenance has a pretty steep learning curve on
> Solaris. This has
> absolutely nothing to do with the substantial
> advantages that Solaris offers
> over Linux. Patches/packages, for example, are a
> huge PITA compar
> I think this also reinforces my
> point, in a somewhat oblique way. I've
> never been under the hood in a Diesel engine.
> It's unfamiliar to me. If I decided to
> start poking around, I'd probably figure that out
> fairly quickly.
This is simply an excellent point you made.
The problem is th
Did you ever read any of Dennis Clarke's posts and blogs about putting
some Solaris server in EONS ago somwehere, and people just forgetting that
it's even there, because it just keeps on serving and serving and serving?
If you didn't, perhaps you should. He has some fascinating stories.
And De
From: UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
> Those places are
> Solaris heavy, in my experience.
What does that tell you?
It tells me that Solaris is a more robust, more reliable, more
engineering-appropriate system that Li
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 00:36:42 PDT
> From: UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: And that would break... what,
> exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
> To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charse
> I've worked in places where system administrators
> hacked source code
> which was available (BSD Unix, source licenses).
>
> Invariably, it is a *bad* idea; but that point is
> never driven home
> until one of the administrators does leave or is hit
> by a truck.
Well, there must be a reason
>you cant support source only packages and let your users compile them
>anyway they want, there are simply too many variables to consider. I
>think you actually void the support from redhat if you dont use one of
>the provided kernels.
>imho, source code availability is a plus but to your regular
--- Ignacio Marambio Catán <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > I love the desktop analogies. People use Fedora in
> > server farms. I have used Fedora in server farms.
> We
> > are most definitely interested in the source code.
> How
> > else are we suppose to integrate previously
> > half/non-int
I love the desktop analogies. People use Fedora in
server farms. I have used Fedora in server farms. We
are most definitely interested in the source code. How
else are we suppose to integrate previously
half/non-integrated pieces of software together?
i'd fire any of my sysadmins if i ever catc
--- Ignacio Marambio Catán <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Maybe not the kernel sources if we are not
> developers.
> > I would say the chances of interest in other
> packages
> > that come along with the distribution are much
> higher
> > than 0.1%.
> i really really doubt that, the sources are
Maybe not the kernel sources if we are not developers.
I would say the chances of interest in other packages
that come along with the distribution are much higher
than 0.1%.
i really really doubt that, the sources are quite useless actually,
what you really use are the derived binaries, check fi
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I've probably a bad idea,but for me "to make
> Solaris more linux like"
> >is to have an opensolaris distro with all sources
> (sources for every
> >package) and a desktop like Ubuntu or RH.Is this an
> open community? Is
> >this open source?
>
> I find that a
>I've probably a bad idea,but for me "to make Solaris more linux like"
>is to have an opensolaris distro with all sources (sources for every
>package) and a desktop like Ubuntu or RH.Is this an open community? Is
>this open source?
I find that a strange way to look at "more Linux like".
I would
I've probably a bad idea,but for me "to make Solaris more linux like" is to
have an opensolaris distro with all sources (sources for every package) and a
desktop like Ubuntu or RH.Is this an open community? Is this open source?
Giacomo
___
OpenSolaris - The
18 matches
Mail list logo
