Re: Linux distros... where do I start?

From: Nico Kadel-Garcia (nkadel_at_comcast.net)
Date: 10/31/04


Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:44:33 -0500


"Gnome de Plume" <gnome@example.net> wrote in message
news:uw5hd.13729$KJ6.1212@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> >>Geez, man! Don't post before you get sufficient coffee into your
system.
> >>SunOS is not based on the non-existent "BSD Linux" - it's a derivative
> >>of 4.1BSD that Bill Joy brought to Sun in 1982. Sloaris is a pretty
> >>substantial rewrite, and fairly far from the original SunOS.
> >
> >
> > Quite right, it was a typo. I should have said BSD UNIX. And I'm usually
so
> > careful about the distinction!
> >
> > Yeah, Slowlaris was not just a re-write, it was a switch over in tool
style.
> > Coupled with the branching weirdnesses of OpenWindows that were going on
at
> > the time (and Sun's eventual reconvergence with more cleanly X-Windows
> > compatible software), it was great fun trying to keep old tools running.
> >
>
> at some point SysV aspects were added. however, i believe SunOS is
> still at the core. SunOS 5.8 underlies Sol 8, 5.9 underlies Sol 9, etc.
> i'll check next time i'm logged into a shell. AFAIK, Solaris was
> SunOS + Openwindows + extra tools. obviously the definition has gotten
> hazy now that Sol is the only thing used.
>
> FWIW, i've used Solaris (off and on) since 2.6.
>
> michael

The haziness was deliberate: it allowed the salesdroids to say "it's still
SunOS" for folks concerned about compatibility, but "it's Solaris" for folks
who wanted the clearly new feature sets. The big influx of AT&T code was
between versions 4.x of SunOS and the 5.x used on Solaris 2.x. The older
SunOS 4.x got released as Solaris 1.x, and life got very strange.

Everybody who actually wrote utilities for that world referred to the SunOS
4.x or earlier releases as SunOS, and the new Solaris 2.x releases as
Solaris, even with the internal numbering.

The fun and games actually led to quite a few people taking older SunOS
boxes and installing Linux on them, to get new software and feature sets
runningn on some good quality but by then slower than average hardware. It
ran quite well, and I've done a few Linux installs on Sun boxes in the last
year. The Sun hardware is good: the Sun operating system I can live without,
since they're clearly migrating back towards the BSD world and thus being
several years behind the Linux world.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Java History
    ... Sun does something similar with SunOs and Solaris: ... >> Being new to Java, I am trying to get a little history. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: "Torn between two OS" - Solaris vs Linux
    ... > Sun had their OS running on x86 processors before that. ... > invented the marketing name Solaris, but SunOS was released on the 80386 ... > long before Linus even started on Linux. ... > This is the machine Sun sold with its x86 SunOS: ...
    (linux.redhat)
  • Re: "Torn between two OS" - Solaris vs Linux
    ... > Sun had their OS running on x86 processors before that. ... > invented the marketing name Solaris, but SunOS was released on the 80386 ... > long before Linus even started on Linux. ... > This is the machine Sun sold with its x86 SunOS: ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: "Torn between two OS" - Solaris vs Linux
    ... > Sun had their OS running on x86 processors before that. ... > invented the marketing name Solaris, but SunOS was released on the 80386 ... > long before Linus even started on Linux. ... > This is the machine Sun sold with its x86 SunOS: ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: Zero Copy, FreeBSD and Linus Torvalds opinion
    ... Solaris, are straight BSD. ... SunOS 5.x was the OS. ... regardless of how Sun labelled the distribution media. ... I use the handle gore on a lot of stuff. ...
    (freebsd-hackers)