Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd wrote:

Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

On Wednesday 13 July 2005 5:33 pm, steve wrote:

...

Has anyone installed solaris alongside 9.3? Any issues or comments?

Yes......why install it? ;)

Fred

Expect a daluge of email from Sun. I did and only after two months did the crap dwindle down.

Adam

They try the hard sell, I've even had a phone call from Sun. I installed Solaris 7 x86 many moons ago, then I had some memory that killed the motherboard, so with new motherboard and memory I couldn't get it to behave, it would boot from hard disk so far, then tell me it didn't know where to boot from .... RIP Solaris x86. In the phone call they asked if I tried Solaris 10 x86, told them I had no interest in doing so. I have the SPARC version installed, lots of GNU utils that make Solaris 10 look modern. Previously Sun steered clear of even mentioning KDE and still don't mention it, but it's there. Their so-called Java Desktop (alias Gnome) is so slow, it's like trying to sprint on a treakle track. KDE is swift, but neither Gnome or KDE are what you would call integrated, they are just facades for the command line and don't give the funtionality available with gawd awful CDE. It's reckoned they hoped to get people running Linux on x86 to convert to Solaris 10, but are met by customers asking why they would want to run Solaris on x86 when there is Linux and most of their x86 corporate sales are Linux. The ability to run Linux binaries on Solaris x86 has been dropped as customers' reactions mainly have been don't care. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

Has anyone successfully saved a Docbook XML file via OOo 2.0-pre? If so, could you please share some details of your XML Filter and Java settings? Mine, along with some test results from DBX-saving failures are at: http://h0lug.sourceforge.net/e26441495b43a45a3fa30865db8bbb71/ (Brief README and MANIFEST are provided there.) I'd be grateful for any help, actually. regards -- AD (Andi) Marshall eM: admarshall@gmail.com Zone: ICT (IndoChina Time, GMT/UTC+7) Post: HoChiMinh City (ex/or SaiGon), VietNam

At 05:49 PM 7/13/2005 -0400, you wrote:

Content-Disposition: inline

On Wednesday 13 July 2005 5:33 pm, steve wrote:

...

Has anyone installed solaris alongside 9.3? Any issues or comments?

Yes......why install it? ;) Fred

-- Maybe because SuSe 9.2 crashed and burned after only 2 weeks, and I have been loath to buy 9.3?

--doug -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 7/12/2005

On 7/13/05, Doug McGarrett wrote:

At 05:49 PM 7/13/2005 -0400, you wrote:

...

Content-Disposition: inline

On Wednesday 13 July 2005 5:33 pm, steve wrote:

...

Has anyone installed solaris alongside 9.3? Any issues or comments?

Yes......why install it? ;) Fred

-- Maybe because SuSe 9.2 crashed and burned after only 2 weeks, and I have been loath to buy 9.3?

9.2 caused me no end of issues.. but 9.3 has been rock solid and is worth the price of admission. I suddenly and without notice didn't have permissions to execute man <whatever> as a user or as root in 9.2 .. it got worse as time went on. I almost moved to FreeBSD because of the issues... and had it not been a company directive that the servers I was building be SUSE.. I would have. :/ - Ben -- "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend religious faith."

On 7/13/05, Peter Nikolic wrote:

On Thursday 14 July 2005 01:56, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

...

On 7/13/05, Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

At 05:49 PM 7/13/2005 -0400, you wrote:

...

Content-Disposition: inline

On Wednesday 13 July 2005 5:33 pm, steve wrote:

...

Has anyone installed solaris alongside 9.3? Any issues or comments?

Yes......why install it? ;)

Fred

...

--

Maybe because SuSe 9.2 crashed and burned after only 2 weeks, and I have been loath to buy 9.3?

9.2 caused me no end of issues.. but 9.3 has been rock solid and is worth the price of admission. I suddenly and without notice didn't have permissions to execute man <whatever> as a user or as root in 9.2 .. it got worse as time went on. I almost moved to FreeBSD because of the issues... and had it not been a company directive that the servers I was building be SUSE.. I would have. :/

- Ben

-- "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend religious faith."

Seems you may need to pay a little attention to the state of youur HDD's rather than slating it off , Those are some of the classic signs of failing drives .

So they've been failing for 5 months? Kinda odd that they would take almost half a year to fail. If they are failing then why has 9.3 run like a dream since install? I doubt it's the drives, maybe fs corruption but the drives are fine. I got 9.3 within days of it being available and installed it... haven't had an issue since. Also, the largest issue was a bug in 9.2 that caused the servers to take 15-30 minutes to boot even if it was a warm reboot... the issue didn't occur with Redhat FC or Gentoo .. and 9.3 hasnt suffered from it either... 9.2 was just prone to issues. No worries. it's a distant memory for me. Cheers! -Ben -- "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend religious faith."

Kevanf1 wrote:

On 14/07/05, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

...

...

Seems you may need to pay a little attention to the state of youur HDD's rather than slating it off , Those are some of the classic signs of failing drives .

So they've been failing for 5 months? Kinda odd that they would take almost half a year to fail. If they are failing then why has 9.3 run like a dream since install? I doubt it's the drives, maybe fs corruption but the drives are fine. I got 9.3 within days of it being available and installed it... haven't had an issue since.

Also, the largest issue was a bug in 9.2 that caused the servers to take 15-30 minutes to boot even if it was a warm reboot... the issue didn't occur with Redhat FC or Gentoo .. and 9.3 hasnt suffered from it either... 9.2 was just prone to issues. No worries. it's a distant memory for me.

It probably would be a sign normally of HDD failure. However, it would seem that quite a few people had 'issues' with 9.2 - myself included - so Ben is not alone. I personally found it slow (though nothing like Mandriva 2005 which I would never recommend to anybody) and had odd niggles. 9.3 is much faster and things works as they are supposed to. I do admit to running SuSE in a PC which really shouldn't be used for the purpose. Memory is fine at 256mb but the processor is a lowly AMD K6-2 500mhz and is lower that SuSE Novell spec'.

However, to be fair to 9.2, there are also an awful lot of people on this list who did not have one scrap of trouble with it. It's a strange old world :-)

9.2 upgrades were a problem with me, the fresh installs were flawless. Mandriva LE 2005 also AOK, I've had no issues with it on the one box (XP2200+/512M/Asrock mobo) 64+ days uptime so far, so I plan to upgrade the Mandrake 10.1 box to LE 2005 perhaps on Monday. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

On 7/14/05, Allen wrote:

You'd be regretting that every day when you first tried to update lol. A few months ago they had a TELNET problem or something along those lines that form what I heard needed a Kernel up or reboot. One fo the two.

Free BSD is great for servers if you already use it, but after using Linux, you won't want to. The hardware support blows, sort of like the Solaris thing does.

lol. Hardware support, I could probably write every device Solaris supports on the inside of a coke can in finger paint.

Not really. I have 12 fairly large USENET servers running FreeBSD 4.9 and they've been up and available for months... no issues. I have serveral other FreeBSD servers doing various jobs.. along with quite a few Solaris 2.9 machines. Everything has it's place and Linux can not solve every issue... don't get me wrong .. I love Linux and have for going on 10 years but the issues in 9.2 were real and did piss me right off. I just don't have time to muck about with stuff. When I installed FC3 an the issue wasn't there.. when I installed Gentoo and the issue was there... I came to the conclusion that it was 9.2. I've seen half-baked releases from SUSE in the last 10 years. It's not like every release is super polished and has absolutely nothing wrong with it. They are better then most I would say, but by no means perfect. As far as hardware support.. not a problem. I build machines to run OS's .. I've done this since I started use Linux / UNIX. I don't just go buy an eMachine and think it should just work. I do the leg work prior to that so I don't have to add to my grey hair. ;) In any event.. 9.3 works great. I won't be upgrading these machines until 9.3 gets EOL'ed anyway. So it's all good. :) - Ben -- "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend religious faith."

On 7/14/05, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:

...

Not really. I have 12 fairly large USENET servers running FreeBSD 4.9 and they've been up and available for months... no issues. I have

I have to ask... Why (and what) do you run on the FreeBSD boxes that you don't run on SuSE 9.3?

These machines run inhouse written USENET news feed servers as said above. When this software was originally written it was developed for *BSD because Linux couldn't handle the load and there were certain things that the developer of said software needed that BSD provided. I didn't write the code so I don't know what these things were. My main point was that FreeBSD isn't a PITA, it runs well on current hardware and I have no issue with it. :) I suppose he could bring his software over to Linux if he chose to do so.. but why bother when we have no issues with these machines at present and moving it serves no purpose. It would be work that would take time away from his other projects.. which involves the SUSE servers. ;) -Ben -- "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend religious faith."

On Thursday 14 July 2005 18:51, Allen wrote:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 05:56:05PM -0700, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

...

On 7/13/05, Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

At 05:49 PM 7/13/2005 -0400, you wrote:

...

Content-Disposition: inline

On Wednesday 13 July 2005 5:33 pm, steve wrote:

...

Has anyone installed solaris alongside 9.3? Any issues or comments?

Yes......why install it? ;)

Fred

...

--

Maybe because SuSe 9.2 crashed and burned after only 2 weeks, and I have been loath to buy 9.3?

9.2 caused me no end of issues.. but 9.3 has been rock solid and is worth the price of admission. I suddenly and without notice didn't have permissions to execute man <whatever> as a user or as root in 9.2 .. it got worse as time went on. I almost moved to FreeBSD because of the issues... and had it not been a company directive that the servers I was building be SUSE.. I would have. :/

You'd be regretting that every day when you first tried to update lol. A few months ago they had a TELNET problem or something along those lines that form what I heard needed a Kernel up or reboot. One fo the two.

Free BSD is great for servers if you already use it, but after using Linux, you won't want to. The hardware support blows, sort of like the Solaris thing does.

lol. Hardware support, I could probably write every device Solaris supports on the inside of a coke can in finger paint.

Pretty handy on SPARC though - runs those devices a treat! Anyone using Solaris on either x86 or SPARC should have a look at Blastwave (http://www.blastwave.org), which makes it superbly easy to install and to keep up-to-date a vast range of software that it is otherwise painful to find and instal, e.g. latest kde or Gnome. I'm surprised there hasn't been more fuss about it, and that Sun hasn't trumpeted it more. In many ways it works a lot better than anything I've seen for Linux or other nixes. Best Fergus

...

- Ben

-- "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend religious faith."

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Wednesday 13 July 2005 23:49, Fred A. Miller wrote:

On Wednesday 13 July 2005 5:33 pm, steve wrote:

...

Has anyone installed solaris alongside 9.3? Any issues or comments?

Yes......why install it? ;)

What do you use it for? I've no big problems with 9.3. Our servers are up for months on end and the 9.3 clients seem to like the show. I've always suspected that Solaris might have better nfs than SuSE, it used to be quite an up market system to use and was basically just curious. Steve.

John Scott wrote:

On 7/13/05, steve wrote:

...

Has anyone installed solaris alongside 9.3? Any issues or comments?

Cheers, Steve.

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Installed it to see if Sun kept their promise about it performing better thatn previous versions on x86. It was good, not a slug like say Solaris 7 x86. BTW, it's a 2GHz Pentium with a gig of RAM. Getting the nVidia card in the system to work was a bit of a chore, but not bad. I'll move my Sun boxes to it eventually when I have the time so my Sun Ray users can get the new interface and I can get containers. Sun hasn't been pushing hard on us, but we already use their stuff. The version of KDE that is available on the companion CDs is 3.1 and that sticks when compared to what KDE has out now. Given that I can do almost everything that my Sun boxes do on x86 and x64, I think I'll stick with Linux on these platforms and leave Solaris on the Sparcs.

John

KDE and Sun Java Desktop (alias Gnome) are mere facades. I agree, Solaris on SPARC and Linux on x86/x86_64, though I've been tempted to install Linux on SPARC dual booting (from the OK prompt) with Solaris 10. Way back at RedHat 6.x I installed Linux on a E3500 for a mailserver and it worked well. I've never found either hardware or software from Sun looking like the finished article, but they make great overtime earners compared to mainframes, much to my delight. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

On Friday 15 July 2005 08:18, steve wrote:

...

do almost everything that my Sun boxes do on x86 and x64, I think I'll stick with Linux on these platforms and leave Solaris on the Sparcs.

John

what's the difference between what I use, an AMDX2200 and a Sparc? Steve

SPARC is an architecture in the sense that x86 PCs and Macs are architectures - software compiled for one won't run on another. They use different components, processors and so on. Typical desktop SPARC machines included things like Sun Ultras and Blades. That's about as much as I know ... HTH Fergus

On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 09:18, steve wrote:

...

do almost everything that my Sun boxes do on x86 and x64, I think I'll stick with Linux on these platforms and leave Solaris on the Sparcs.

John

what's the difference between what I use, an AMDX2200 and a Sparc? Steve

Why leave slowaris on sparcs? Waste of cpu power... I'm running Linux on Sparc since RH 4.1 With a brief period Suse 7.0 - 7.2 on Sparc Aurora (forked from RH), Gentoo and Debian ahve still uptodate releases Some even say that tux outperforms Solaris on sun-hardware, while "true-believer" swear on *BSD on sparc-servers. And about the difference? Totally incompatible! SUN used (!) to be way ahead of the others. Over 10 years ago while folks at AMD and Intel regarded 64-bit machines as redidulous, Sun was selling there first sun-4U CPU's in their Ultra-1 and Ultra-2 workstations...

From then on, less development for SUN, in contrast with the others. First IBM, next HP (PA-risc) and finally Intel (Itanium) and AMD

Hans

John Scott wrote:

On 7/15/05, Hans Witvliet wrote:

...

On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 09:18, steve wrote:

...

...

do almost everything that my Sun boxes do on x86 and x64, I think I'll stick with Linux on these platforms and leave Solaris on the Sparcs.

John

what's the difference between what I use, an AMDX2200 and a Sparc? Steve

Why leave slowaris on sparcs? Waste of cpu power...

I'm running Linux on Sparc since RH 4.1 With a brief period Suse 7.0 - 7.2 on Sparc Aurora (forked from RH), Gentoo and Debian ahve still uptodate releases

Some even say that tux outperforms Solaris on sun-hardware, while "true-believer" swear on *BSD on sparc-servers.

That was absolutely true, Linux on SPARC used to outperform Solaris up to 9, Solaris 10 seems must speedier, but I've not yet had the chance to do a comparison.

...

And about the difference? Totally incompatible! SUN used (!) to be way ahead of the others. Over 10 years ago while folks at AMD and Intel regarded 64-bit machines as redidulous, Sun was selling there first sun-4U CPU's in their Ultra-1 and Ultra-2 workstations...

...

From then on, less development for SUN, in contrast with the others. First IBM, next HP (PA-risc) and finally Intel (Itanium) and AMD

Hans

Well at the time of deployment, Solaris was supported for my apps, Linux wasn't and at the time Linux wasn't anywhere near what it is now. Since I have the hardware (E450's) already and the OS doesn't cost me a dime, I get nothing from ripping out Solaris just to install Linux on the servers. Now when it comes time to retire the hardware (but the hardware is tops and runs forever, hence the high price) then everything is back on the table. I can't comment on anybody else's experience with "Slowaris" as it has been mentioned, but mine has been very favorable and slow isn't how I would descibe it. Now Windows (any version), yeah. I've got web, genetics databases, Sun Ray server, and several other apps on a 4-way with 2GB RAM and that box doesn't break a sweat. And I can't remember the last time it was rebooted, I think it involved a drive failure when the server room AC went south. Now there's an area of complaint, Sun gear gets hot!!! and likes (loves?) eating electricity!!! Put a few of these in a cold room and it won't stay cold long. You could cook on SPARC processors. Our physical plant guys checked the temp coming out from the Sun boxes and were reading 109 degrees F. As for innovation, Sun and IBM had dual core before anyone else, so don't write Sun off yet. And Sun hardware isn't all that they innovate. NFS, pam, and Java just to name a few, all from Sun. So while they don't support Linux on their SPARC line, at least they do for their x86_64 boxes. And if someone wants to install Linux on SPARC, they can and users won't notice anything and the Solaris admin won't have to learn any new skills. It's a win-win situation. No matter what choice is made, and isn't that what's best, getting a choice?

John

Sun's hardware and software innovations are just where we were with the mainframe back in the early 1980's, it's cumbersome to install, upgrade and admin. I installed and had mainframes up and running customer workload in 8 hours on a mainframe as opposed to several days for a E10K/E25K class machine. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks