Not sure if the list has seen this before or not, but I found it very
insightful and though some others would benefit from it. Happens to be a
very even handed look into the benefits behind both OSes. (Beware, it's
long and filled full of all kinds of goodies)
http://www.softpanorama.org/Artic
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, De Togni Giacomo wrote:
An extensive comparison between Solaris and Linux by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov.
http://www.softpanorama.org/Articles/solaris_vs_linux.shtml
I smell the horrid stench of flamebait ...
Please, leave that out of here, creates too much clutter in the mail
An extensive comparison between Solaris and Linux by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov.
http://www.softpanorama.org/Articles/solaris_vs_linux.shtml
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What kinds of risk? By definition, existing scripts and customers don't use
> the long options, so this would be justified only by how it enabled new
> markets (i.e., porting from Linux...); adding long options diverges the
> commands from the POSIX spec,
Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options
One of the ARC cases that I am working on publishing to the community
relates to Command Line standards:
PSARC 1999/645: CLIP (Command Line Interface Paradigm)
One of the key discussions revolved around "when it was a
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
I am wondering if anyone would be interested in discussing Solaris_86
(10 and later) vis-a-vis Linux?
I have been using Red Hat Linux since 4.2 and am very pleased, as far
as desktops are concerned, with Fedora Core 4. However, because of
several critical issues (e.g., ina
On 7/7/05, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, this has been a long winding post ( as is usual from me ) and I
> am simply pouring out my thoughts here.
+1 as usual
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
___
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
You don't seem to understand that a "stable" kernel offers stable interfaces.
Linux-2.6 does not and for this reason cannot be called stable.
Can't we leave this kind of discussion to c.u.s /c.o.l.a crossposts? I
don't think we need another list to d
Chris Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > And BTW: it is definitely unfair to compare an instable devleopment kernel
> > from
> > Linux (2.6) with a stable Solaris-10. A fair comparison would compare
> > Linux2.6
> > with Solaris-11 or Solaris-10
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> And BTW: it is definitely unfair to compare an instable devleopment kernel
> from
> Linux (2.6) with a stable Solaris-10. A fair comparison would compare Linux2.6
> with Solaris-11 or Solaris-10 with Linux-2.4 (which is the latest stable
> Linux).
N
Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LinuxVersusSolarisAnalysis24Feb2005.pdf
>
> I think after making your rather flaming and wholly inaccurate comment
> about the CDDL that hardly anyone can trust your assessment of "fair"
> in regards to any compariso
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[good stuff snipped]
Personally I predict a "super-system" that is a bottom layer host for
just about anything on top. Within 5 years. We currently see VMWare
and Qemu and perhaps others that allow us to 'simulate' an x86 system
on top of some other sy
On 7/7/05, Jim Grisanzio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As this discussion gets going, I'd just like to chime in with this: many
> of us here believe that both communities, both technologies, and both
> licenses have great value and will thrive side by side well into the
> future. Technical conversat
As this discussion gets going, I'd just like to chime in with this: many
of us here believe that both communities, both technologies, and both
licenses have great value and will thrive side by side well into the
future. Technical conversations among peers starting from that
perspective are cert
Ok, ok, poor form.. Someone else answer the original question then - I
retract mine..
Al Hopper wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Michael K Dolan Jr wrote:
I've read a pretty fair comparison of Linux 2.6 vs Solaris 10. I think I
originally got it off LinuxToday.com but just did a searc
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Michael K Dolan Jr wrote:
> I've read a pretty fair comparison of Linux 2.6 vs Solaris 10. I think I
> originally got it off LinuxToday.com but just did a search and found a
> link to it on IBM's site... It actually looks at everything from
> technical differences, legal/licens
On 7/6/05, Chris Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Michael K Dolan Jr wrote:
> > ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LinuxVersusSolarisAnalysis24Feb2005.pdf
>
> You might note who paid for that analysis. Like most such studies, it
> ends up supporting its sugar daddy -- no
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Michael K Dolan Jr wrote:
> ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LinuxVersusSolarisAnalysis24Feb2005.pdf
You might note who paid for that analysis. Like most such studies, it
ends up supporting its sugar daddy -- no real surprise there. The
technical inaccuracies in it (abo
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Michael K Dolan Jr wrote:
> accurate. I tend to favor Linux too anyway (GPL is open source with
> freedom, CDDL is fake open source) and so does most of this industry
Care to explain your-anti CDDL FUD? CDDL is just as open source as
GPL, and gives developers MORE freedom tha
On 7/6/05, Michael K Dolan Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've read a pretty fair comparison of Linux 2.6 vs Solaris 10. I think I
> originally got it off LinuxToday.com but just did a search and found a
> link to it on IBM's site... It actually looks at everything from
> technical differences, le
I've read a pretty fair comparison of Linux 2.6 vs Solaris 10. I think I
originally got it off LinuxToday.com but just did a search and found a
link to it on IBM's site... It actually looks at everything from
technical differences, legal/licensing, and ecosystems support. In the
end it comes ou
I have noticed that there are two kinds of companies in this regard.
1. Companies that analyze how cheaply they can procure the hardware and
software on which they run their IT infrastructure.
2. Companies that depend on having some relationship with a vendor who can both
provide support and s
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
I am wondering if anyone would be interested in discussing Solaris_86
(10 and later) vis-a-vis Linux?
Do we have to? There are so many different email lists and/or newsgroups
that are already discussing that.
Unless we are talking e.g technical issu
I am wondering if anyone would be interested in discussing Solaris_86 (10 and
later) vis-a-vis Linux?
I have been using Red Hat Linux since 4.2 and am very pleased, as far as
desktops are concerned, with Fedora Core 4. However, because of several
critical issues (e.g., inability to include pro
24 matches
Mail list logo
