|
Home > Archive > Unix administration > October 2004 > inetd not running on solaris 8
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
inetd not running on solaris 8
|
|
| zamaron 2004-10-15, 9:29 pm |
| All,
I am facing plight in starting the inted daemon as it was killed by
some one and again we tried to start/restart but unable to do it.
We rebooted the machine again the problem is not yet been resolved.
Details of the m/c
Model: Sun Enterprise 420R (4 X UltraSPARC-II 450MHz)
OS: Solaris 2.8
/var/adm/messages o/p;-
inetd[10584]: [ID 729102 user.error] ISTATE not in environment
Does the parallel running of sac deamon effects the inetd part.
root 583 1 0 23:23:27 ? 0:00 /usr/lib/saf/sac -t 300
root 17211 16187 0 06:28:05 pts/2 0:00 grep -i sac
Please do reply me asap
Rgds,
Zamaron
| |
| Michael Tosch 2004-10-16, 7:47 am |
| In article <d594874e.0410150329.1400196@posting.google.com>, mdzubair940@yahoo.com (zamaron) writes:
> All,
>
> I am facing plight in starting the inted daemon as it was killed by
> some one and again we tried to start/restart but unable to do it.
>
> We rebooted the machine again the problem is not yet been resolved.
>
> Details of the m/c
>
> Model: Sun Enterprise 420R (4 X UltraSPARC-II 450MHz)
> OS: Solaris 2.8
You mean Solaris 8.
>
> /var/adm/messages o/p;-
> inetd[10584]: [ID 729102 user.error] ISTATE not in environment
>
> Does the parallel running of sac deamon effects the inetd part.
>
> root 583 1 0 23:23:27 ? 0:00 /usr/lib/saf/sac -t 300
> root 17211 16187 0 06:28:05 pts/2 0:00 grep -i sac
>
> Please do reply me asap
>
> Rgds,
> Zamaron
According to SunSolve, the error message means in /etc/inetd.conf
there is a daemon located on an automounted file system; it does
not mean that inetd has a severe problem with it.
man inetd
sais that
/usr/sbin/inetd
tries to contact sac daemon, so there can be a related problem.
/usr/sbin/inetd -s
does not try to contact daemon, and
/usr/sbin/inetd -d
is for debugging.
--
Michael Tosch
IT Specialist
HP Managed Services
Technology Solutions Group
Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Phone: +49 2407 575 313
Mail: michael.tosch:hp.com
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-10-18, 5:53 pm |
| On 16 Oct 2004 12:55:20 GMT, Michael Tosch <eedmit@NO.eed.SPAM.ericsson.PLS.se> wrote:
> In article <d594874e.0410150329.1400196@posting.google.com>, mdzubair940@yahoo.com (zamaron) writes:
>
> You mean Solaris 8.
Or SunOS 5.8 - "Solaris 8" is the marketing name for the OS, "Solaris 2.8"
and "SunOS 5.8" are the technically accurate names.
| |
| Beardy 2004-10-18, 5:53 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2004 12:55:20 GMT, Michael Tosch <eedmit@NO.eed.SPAM.ericsson.PLS.se> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Or SunOS 5.8 - "Solaris 8" is the marketing name for the OS, "Solaris 2.8"
> and "SunOS 5.8" are the technically accurate names.
>
Nope. "Solaris 2.8" is not valid.
| |
| Dragan Cvetkovic 2004-10-18, 5:53 pm |
| Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> writes:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> Nope. "Solaris 2.8" is not valid.
>
Agreed.
What I hate the most when people start to extrapolate backwards: since you
have Solaris 7, 8 and 9, the previous one is, of course, Solaris 6.
Sun's marketing is really good at (and fond of) muddling the water...
Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
| |
| Rich Teer 2004-10-18, 5:53 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
> What I hate the most when people start to extrapolate backwards: since you
> have Solaris 7, 8 and 9, the previous one is, of course, Solaris 6.
Yep. And on a related note, books from alleged Solaris experts that
are about "Solaris 9.0" [sic] also irk me. I mean, if they can't even
get the name of the OS right, what hope have they got of getting the
rest of it accurate?
I've never heard of Solaris 9.0: the last ".0" release I'm aware of was
Solaris 2.0, which had a VERY limited distribution. IIRC, Solaris 2.1
was the first generally available version.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming",
published in August 2004.
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
| |
|
|
| Kjetil Torgrim Homme 2004-10-18, 8:48 pm |
| [Dave Hinz]:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:42:17 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
>
> Someone should tell Sun, then...
> http://onesearch.sun.com/search/one...olaris%202.8%22
can you hold Sun accountable for what people enter in forum mesasges
and bug reports?
--
Kjetil T.
| |
| Beardy 2004-10-18, 8:48 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:42:17 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Someone should tell Sun, then...
> http://onesearch.sun.com/search/one...olaris%202.8%22
>
> Dave Hinz
>
>
Dave, not having examined all the search results from your URL, but
using about 4 as a "representative" cross-section, all the erroneous
references to "Solaris 2.8" were made by people external to Sun, and
just found their way into archives of forums/bug databases.
| |
| Casper H.S. Dik 2004-10-19, 2:48 am |
| Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
>On 16 Oct 2004 12:55:20 GMT, Michael Tosch <eedmit@NO.eed.SPAM.ericsson.PLS.se> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Or SunOS 5.8 - "Solaris 8" is the marketing name for the OS, "Solaris 2.8"
>and "SunOS 5.8" are the technically accurate names.
No "Solaris 2.8" is not an accurate name; the proper name
is "Solaris 8". "Solaris <num>" is the marketing name. Surely
Sun marketing is allowed to chose its own name and numbering
schemes however confusing they may be?
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:26:03 +0200, Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@yksi.ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> [Dave Hinz]:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> can you hold Sun accountable for what people enter in forum mesasges
> and bug reports?
When the bug reports are at Sun's own site, and go through Sun's people
to decide on the language on the bug reports, I'd say that Sun uses
the term "Solaris 2.8".
http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/advs...olaris%202.8%22
shows more, including in the category of "Public Sun Alert notifications".
So, it's Sun's language, not some customer or something.
All this begs the question - why the heck do you feel so strongly
about something like this? I mean, aside from the fact that you're
demonstrably wrong, why do you care about it at all?
Dave Hinz
| |
| Beardy 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:26:03 +0200, Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@yksi.ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When the bug reports are at Sun's own site, and go through Sun's people
> to decide on the language on the bug reports, I'd say that Sun uses
> the term "Solaris 2.8".
> http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/advs...olaris%202.8%22
>
> shows more, including in the category of "Public Sun Alert notifications".
> So, it's Sun's language, not some customer or something.
>
> All this begs the question - why the heck do you feel so strongly
> about something like this? I mean, aside from the fact that you're
> demonstrably wrong, why do you care about it at all?
>
> Dave Hinz
>
Dave, we are *not* demonstrably wrong. Since Solaris 7, the single-digit
convention for the release number has been used, preceded by the word
Solaris. If prededed by "SunOS" however, then the "2.X" version number
still prevails. We care about this subject bcoz we aim to be accurate,
correct, and precise in this NG. That is, until we drop clangers - this
not being one, though.
Give it up - you are on a "demonstrable" loser on this one.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:21:35 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dave, we are *not* demonstrably wrong. Since Solaris 7, the single-digit
> convention for the release number has been used, preceded by the word
> Solaris.
Did you _look_ at the link above? Sun documents on Sun's site from Sun's
engineers calling it "Solaris 2.8".
> If prededed by "SunOS" however, then the "2.X" version number
> still prevails.
No. SunOS 5.8, yes. Go to the patch download page at Sunsolve, it's listed
as SunOS 5.8 there, right on the front page, in the drag-down box of "Select
SunOS and Patch Number". It's right there in the "Patch Portal" section
prominently displayed on the page. SunOS 2.8 was an entirely different
thing if it existed at all, and if I had to guess it would have been a BSD
running on a 68xxx processor, in the 1980's.
> We care about this subject bcoz we aim to be accurate,
> correct, and precise in this NG. That is, until we drop clangers - this
> not being one, though.
Evidence from Sun's site is contrary to your claim. See above URL
at Sunsolve, or punch "Solaris 2.8" (with quotes) into the search
box at sunsolve.sun.com
> Give it up - you are on a "demonstrable" loser on this one.
Which brings me back to my question. Why are you making such a big
deal out of this when (a) it doesn't matter, and (b) Sun's own site
shows that you're wrong on _both_ counts? And why a label of "loser",
is this a contest now or something?
Dave Hinz
| |
| Michael Tosch 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| In article <2tknn9F20puspU12@uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:26:03 +0200, Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@yksi.ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> When the bug reports are at Sun's own site, and go through Sun's people
> to decide on the language on the bug reports, I'd say that Sun uses
> the term "Solaris 2.8".
> http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/advs...olaris%202.8%22
>
> shows more, including in the category of "Public Sun Alert notifications".
> So, it's Sun's language, not some customer or something.
>
> All this begs the question - why the heck do you feel so strongly
> about something like this? I mean, aside from the fact that you're
> demonstrably wrong, why do you care about it at all?
>
> Dave Hinz
>
*clap*clap*
I am amazed to see that Sun technicians stumble over Sun's Marketing
decision, too.
--
Michael Tosch
IT Specialist
HP Managed Services
Technology Solutions Group
Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Phone: +49 2407 575 313
Mail: michael.tosch:hp.com
| |
| Tony Walton 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| Beardy wrote:
> Dave, we are *not* demonstrably wrong. Since Solaris 7, the single-digit
> convention for the release number has been used, preceded by the word
> Solaris. If prededed by "SunOS" however, then the "2.X" version number
> still prevails.
No it doesn't. The SunOS release is 5.x :-)
--
Tony (who as we speak is busy fixing the all the erroneous mentions of
"Solaris 2.8" that he can get to)
| |
| Dragan Cvetkovic 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| Tony Walton <tony.walton@s_u_n.com> writes:
> Tony (who as we speak is busy fixing the all the erroneous mentions of
> "Solaris 2.8" that he can get to)
Are there any mentioning Solaris 2.9? :-)
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
| |
| Tony Walton 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> Did you _look_ at the link above? Sun documents on Sun's site from
> Sun's engineers calling it "Solaris 2.8".
Well, not all of them. If you look at the documents involved in a bit
more detail, quite a few of them were not originally from "Sun's
engineers" (they came from iPlanet originally) I'm fixing them now. One
of the hits is in a verbatim error message from a patch supplied by
Oracle; hardly the fault of "Sun's engineers". Yes, some of them are
wrong and, where possible, I'll see about fixing them.
--
Tony
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:07:47 +0100, Tony Walton <tony.walton@s_u_n.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
> Well, not all of them. If you look at the documents involved in a bit
> more detail, quite a few of them were not originally from "Sun's
> engineers" (they came from iPlanet originally) I'm fixing them now.
Tony, I like you, but this'll probably come out the wrong way but I'm
gonna say it anyway - "It's good to know that all of the important things
are fixed so Sun can spend time on something like this" (edited version).
> One
> of the hits is in a verbatim error message from a patch supplied by
> Oracle; hardly the fault of "Sun's engineers". Yes, some of them are
> wrong and, where possible, I'll see about fixing them.
Um, OK. Changing common usage of a term is a XXXXX, ain't it.
| |
| Tony Walton 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> Tony, I like you, but this'll probably come out the wrong way but I'm
> gonna say it anyway - "It's good to know that all of the important
> things are fixed so Sun can spend time on something like this"
> (edited version).
All part of an ongoing project to improve our documentation.
IOW keeping documentation up to scratch is part of my job - is searching
SunSolve for the 30-odd mentions of "Solaris 2.8" part of yours? :-)
Seriously yes, we are aware that some SunSolve content is out of date
and to a greater or lesser extent does contain errors - this is partly
historical; for quite a while there was no tight control over the
publishing process. This is changing (slowly - there are lot of
documentation sources in here and a lot of different processes to get
from the keyboard to SunSolve) now.
What I suggest is that if you come across something that's in error,
please do use the "SunSolve Feedback" link at the bottom of the page.
--
Tony
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:34:27 +0100, Tony Walton <tony.walton@s_u_n.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
> All part of an ongoing project to improve our documentation.
I'm all for that.
> IOW keeping documentation up to scratch is part of my job - is searching
> SunSolve for the 30-odd mentions of "Solaris 2.8" part of yours? :-)
Not exactly, but if someone wanders past and sees me on Sunsolve there won't
be many questions about what I'm doing there...
> What I suggest is that if you come across something that's in error,
> please do use the "SunSolve Feedback" link at the bottom of the page.
I suppose if I ever saw something that mattered, I'd do so. Calling the
successor of "Solaris 2.7" "Solaris 2.8" isn't something I see as a problem.
I guess it's inevitable that Sun will eventually work down two one naming
convention rather than 3, and it's unfortunate that it looks like it'll be
the marketing name rather than a technical name. Ah well. Kind of like
SunOS 4.something being retroactively renamed Solaris 1.something, I guess.
As long as uname knows what the heck kind of system it's on, I really don't
care.
| |
| Beardy 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
> Tony Walton <tony.walton@s_u_n.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
> Are there any mentioning Solaris 2.9? :-)
>
2.11? ;-)
| |
| Beardy 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:34:27 +0100, Tony Walton <tony.walton@s_u_n.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm all for that.
As we all are.
>
>
> Not exactly, but if someone wanders past and sees me on Sunsolve there won't
> be many questions about what I'm doing there...
Sunsolve has for many years been used as a full-screen cover for
porn-surfing ;-)
>
>
> I suppose if I ever saw something that mattered, I'd do so. Calling the
> successor of "Solaris 2.7" "Solaris 2.8" isn't something I see as a problem.
> I guess it's inevitable that Sun will eventually work down two one naming
> convention rather than 3, and it's unfortunate that it looks like it'll be
> the marketing name rather than a technical name. Ah well. Kind of like
> SunOS 4.something being retroactively renamed Solaris 1.something, I guess.
> As long as uname knows what the heck kind of system it's on, I really don't
> care.
>
There was never "Solaris 2.7". That's when "Solaris 7" was incarnated.
Sun does have some work to do with naming conventions, but not in the
way you are suggesting. "Solaris" is the Operating Environment, and its
naming convention is not currently dotted. "SunOS", the operating system
version within the operating environment does have a dotted version
number. Thus "SunOS 5.9" is (the operating system part of) "Solaris 9".
The problem Sun have at the moment is nomenclature regarding Solaris 10.
Not the fact that Solaris 10 == SunOS 5.10 - that is correct. But there
are 3 routes that you can get to the latest release of Solaris 10 -
through the Software Express for Solaris program, the Solaris 10 Early
Availibility Program, and the Solaris 10 Beta program. All of these
point to the currently available version of Solaris 10 (s10_63 (until
hopefully the end of the month when the next release is due)).
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-10-19, 5:51 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:16:53 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Sunsolve has for many years been used as a full-screen cover for
> porn-surfing ;-)
Hm. Where did you get a copy of my last review?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> There was never "Solaris 2.7". That's when "Solaris 7" was incarnated.
OK, then looks like Tony has more cleaning up to do then. Shift my
statement back a dot-rev and repeat as necessary; the point stands
regardless of when the marketing people started meddling in how the
naming was done. I think the real problem started when they renamed
SunOS 5 to Solaris 2 and retroactively named SunOS 4 to Solaris 1,
right around '98 or so I'm thinking? Didn't make sense then, but made
more sense than calling it the name of the dot-rev after a "5".
This was in the times when IE and netscape were trying to keep pace
with each other's major rev number as if it meant anything at all
between two programs, and I think Sun's marketing folks just got
dragged into all that silliness.
> Sun does have some work to do with naming conventions, but not in the
> way you are suggesting. "Solaris" is the Operating Environment, and its
> naming convention is not currently dotted. "SunOS", the operating system
> version within the operating environment does have a dotted version
> number.
Well, OK, but this seems like the same sort of pedantry that rants
"Linux is the KERNEL, not the OS (wipes spittle from corners of mouth)"
and so on.
> Thus "SunOS 5.9" is (the operating system part of) "Solaris 9".
A meaningless distinction in practical terms.
> The problem Sun have at the moment is nomenclature regarding Solaris 10.
> Not the fact that Solaris 10 == SunOS 5.10 - that is correct. But there
> are 3 routes that you can get to the latest release of Solaris 10 -
> through the Software Express for Solaris program, the Solaris 10 Early
> Availibility Program, and the Solaris 10 Beta program. All of these
> point to the currently available version of Solaris 10 (s10_63 (until
> hopefully the end of the month when the next release is due)).
I'm running the current early availability release on a couple of test boxes,
and it's more ready than some of the released Solaris operating whatever-
they-are's were when released. (2.5, and Whatever-7 come to mind).
Can't wait to play with it on something with more than a couple CPUs.
Dave Hinz
| |
| Alan Coopersmith 2004-10-19, 8:48 pm |
| Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|The problem Sun have at the moment is nomenclature regarding Solaris 10.
|Not the fact that Solaris 10 == SunOS 5.10 - that is correct. But there
|are 3 routes that you can get to the latest release of Solaris 10 -
|through the Software Express for Solaris program, the Solaris 10 Early
|Availibility Program, and the Solaris 10 Beta program.
Actually, 4 - there's also the Java Desktop System Release 3 for Solaris
Beta program, but that wasn't as widely available as the others.
--
________________________________________
________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * alanc@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/ * http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
| |
|
| > There was never "Solaris 2.7". That's when "Solaris 7" was incarnated.
> Sun does have some work to do with naming conventions, but not in the
> way you are suggesting. "Solaris" is the Operating Environment, and its
> naming convention is not currently dotted. "SunOS", the operating system
> version within the operating environment does have a dotted version
> number. Thus "SunOS 5.9" is (the operating system part of) "Solaris 9".
>
> The problem Sun have at the moment is nomenclature regarding Solaris 10.
> Not the fact that Solaris 10 == SunOS 5.10 - that is correct. But there
>
> are 3 routes that you can get to the latest release of Solaris 10 -
> through the Software Express for Solaris program, the Solaris 10 Early
> Availibility Program, and the Solaris 10 Beta program. All of these
> point to the currently available version of Solaris 10 (s10_63 (until
> hopefully the end of the month when the next release is due)).
>
Okay, someone explain this to me like I'm a six year old -
use colorful pictures, very small words, and speak
veeeeery slowly with happy inflection:
Why didn't Solaris 10 logically become SunOS 5.1.0 ?
Because there are now 3 routes? Because there is
NO logic whatsoever to marketing? Just, because?
(I used to use that last one myself when my kid was six,
so I guess that's also acceptable.)
| |
| Neil W Rickert 2004-10-23, 2:47 am |
| Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> writes:
>There was never "Solaris 2.7". That's when "Solaris 7" was incarnated.
I don't believe that is correct. As I recall, SunOS 5.7 was called
both "Solaris 2.7" and "Solaris 7", with the second name eventually
gaining dominance.
| |
| Beardy 2004-10-23, 2:47 am |
| ds wrote:
>
>
> Okay, someone explain this to me like I'm a six year old -
> use colorful pictures, very small words, and speak
> veeeeery slowly with happy inflection:
> Why didn't Solaris 10 logically become SunOS 5.1.0 ?
Hello ds, hope your teddy bear is snugly tucked up under the duvet. Now
could you please ask your math teacher in what numbering scheme (sorry,
that's a bit of a tough word) does adding 1 to "5.9" make "5.1.0"?
> Because there are now 3 routes? Because there is
> NO logic whatsoever to marketing? Just, because?
> (I used to use that last one myself when my kid was six,
> so I guess that's also acceptable.)
I try "just bcoz" as an explanation to a partially rhetorical question
from the wife periodically. Shortly after this, I usually adjourn to the
pub ;-)
| |
| Casper H.S. Dik 2004-10-23, 2:47 am |
| Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> writes:
>Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> writes:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I don't believe that is correct. As I recall, SunOS 5.7 was called
>both "Solaris 2.7" and "Solaris 7", with the second name eventually
>gaining dominance.
Nope; while some remnants of "Solaris 2.7" such as the "Solaris_2.7"
directory on the CDs remained, the product was renamed before its release
and was never sold or marketed as anything other than Solaris 7.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
| |
| Victor A Abell 2004-10-23, 5:48 pm |
| Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> writes:
>Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> writes:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Nope; while some remnants of "Solaris 2.7" such as the "Solaris_2.7"
>directory on the CDs remained, the product was renamed before its release
>and was never sold or marketed as anything other than Solaris 7.
Casper's correct. However, it definitely was called 2.7
during its Beta test and I have a polo shirt with Sun and
Solaris 2.7 embroidered on it to prove the quondam, short
life of the 2.7 moniker.
Vic
| |
|
|
"Beardy" <beardy@beardy.net> wrote in message
news:4179deb1$0$61915$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> ds wrote:
>
> Hello ds, hope your teddy bear is snugly tucked up under the duvet. Now
> could you please ask your math teacher in what numbering scheme (sorry,
> that's a bit of a tough word) does adding 1 to "5.9" make "5.1.0"?
:-)
Well, I *am* a victim of the US 'new math' scheme of teaching
back in the 60's (yeah, I'm *that* old!  , and I ain't been right
in the math dep't since.... but, lesseee.... (damn, where's
my fourth grade number line??)....
Isn't the '5' in SunOS5.x a ref to system 5?
If so, doesn't it then make more sense to be referencing
decimals here?
Solaris 7==SunOS5.7 would be SunOS5.0.7 (0.7)
Solaris 8==SunOS5.8 would be SunOS5.0.8 (0.8)
Solaris 9==SunOS5.9 would be SunOS5.0.9 (0.9)
Solaris 10 would be....SunOS5.1.0 (1.0) ??
Another reason I didn't become a programmer...
I'd never understand revision schemes! LoL!
S'pose I could get a six year old to explain it to me....
>
>
> I try "just bcoz" as an explanation to a partially rhetorical question
> from the wife periodically. Shortly after this, I usually adjourn to the
> pub ;-)
>
After all the above, a toddy sounds pretty good about now! x-)
| |
|
|
| Alan Coopersmith 2004-10-24, 2:47 am |
| "ds" <not@now> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|Isn't the '5' in SunOS5.x a ref to system 5?
No, it's the OS revision after SunOS 4.x that was the previous version.
|If so, doesn't it then make more sense to be referencing
|decimals here?
|
|Solaris 7==SunOS5.7 would be SunOS5.0.7 (0.7)
|Solaris 8==SunOS5.8 would be SunOS5.0.8 (0.8)
|Solaris 9==SunOS5.9 would be SunOS5.0.9 (0.9)
|Solaris 10 would be....SunOS5.1.0 (1.0) ??
That would be retroactively renumbering them and even more confusing.
(There already was a SunOS 5.1, though few people ran it many many
years ago.)
--
________________________________________
________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * alanc@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/ * http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
| |
| Greg Andrews 2004-10-24, 5:49 pm |
| "ds" <not@now> writes:
>
>Isn't the '5' in SunOS5.x a ref to system 5?
>
Er...no. SunOS has gone through 5 major versions since
1980-whatever. There have been a SunOS 1.x, 2.x, 3.x,
4.x (based on BSD 4.2), and now a 5.x (based on SVR4.0).
-Greg
--
Do NOT reply via e-mail.
Reply in the newsgroup.
| |
| Greg Andrews 2004-10-24, 5:49 pm |
| gerg@panix.com (Greg Andrews) writes:
>"ds" <not@now> writes:
>
>Er...no. SunOS has gone through 5 major versions since
>1980-whatever. There have been a SunOS 1.x, 2.x, 3.x,
>4.x (based on BSD 4.2), and now a 5.x (based on SVR4.0).
>
To clarify, I meant that all the SunOS versions from 1.x
through 4.x were based on BSD, not just the 4.x version.
-Greg
--
Do NOT reply via e-mail.
Reply in the newsgroup.
| |
| RedNight 2004-10-25, 2:48 am |
| On 2004-10-23, Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
> Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> writes:
>
>
> I don't believe that is correct. As I recall, SunOS 5.7 was called
> both "Solaris 2.7" and "Solaris 7", with the second name eventually
> gaining dominance.
>
The kernel/core OS is SunOS 5.7
The "Operating Enviroment" version numner is 2.7
the product is named Solaris 7
--
[]-[]-[]
| []-[]-[]
| RedNight+-
| |
| RedNight 2004-10-25, 2:48 am |
| >> Isn't the '5' in SunOS5.x a ref to system 5?
No, but they did move from 4.x which was BSD based to
5.x when they moved to System V
--
[]-[]-[]
| []-[]-[]
| RedNight+-
| |
| Dragan Cvetkovic 2004-10-25, 5:52 pm |
| abe@quest.cc.purdue.edu (Victor A Abell) writes:
> Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> writes:
>
> Casper's correct. However, it definitely was called 2.7
> during its Beta test and I have a polo shirt with Sun and
> Solaris 2.7 embroidered on it to prove the quondam, short
> life of the 2.7 moniker.
>
Yes, but once the shirt is washed out, all memories of 2.7 will also be
washed out...
Bye, Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-10-25, 5:52 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:23:51 -0400, ds <not@now.invalid> wrote:
> Okay, someone explain this to me like I'm a six year old -
> use colorful pictures, very small words, and speak
> veeeeery slowly with happy inflection:
> Why didn't Solaris 10 logically become SunOS 5.1.0 ?
Because the number after 9, is 10, not 1.0
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-10-26, 5:51 pm |
| On 23 Oct 04 08:50:11 EST, Victor A Abell <abe@quest.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
> Casper's correct. However, it definitely was called 2.7
> during its Beta test and I have a polo shirt with Sun and
> Solaris 2.7 embroidered on it to prove the quondam, short
> life of the 2.7 moniker.
....and I have a grey polo shirt that says "Solaris 7", so I think we've
identified the point of transition with (sorry) material evidence.
Dave Hinz
|
|
|
|
|