Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)

[Ben Scott]

On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey <tom at buskey.name> wrote:
>>   To those who are not aware, "Solaris 2.6" would be "Solaris 6" under
>> the current nomenclature.
>
> Actually, Solaris 2.6 is 2.6.  Solaris 2.7 became just Solaris 7.

  Lame response.  Obviously, if 2.7 = 7, 2.8 = 8, 2.9 = 9, and 2.10 =
10, then 2.6 = 6.  Point being that 2.6 to 10 is four major releases,
not eight.

> And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x.

  Right.  1.x = classic SunOS and 2.x = present-day Solaris.  Which is
why they dropped the 2. prefix in the first place; they realized it
was a lame idea.  Solaris was stuck on 2.x forever.  So why bother
with the 2.x?  (Same problem Linux kernel has, incidentally.)

>>   I suspect a better comparison would be RHEL 2.1 on RHEL 5.0.
>
> Heck, RedHat 6.0 to RedHat 9.

  Not apples to apples.  RHL was not advertised as a long lifecycle
OS.  RHEL is.

  I still suspect Solaris does a lot better in this area (for the
appropriate definitions of "better"), I'm just curious how well (or
poorly) RHEL does.  Or Debian Stable, for that matter.

> Heck, you can see where Windows might have advantages.

  I kinda like the Pinball game that comes with Win XP...  ;-)

-- Ben