From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 26011 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2022 14:50:28 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Jan 2022 14:50:28 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 0DD6394A8B; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 00:50:24 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7E293FD1; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 00:49:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 34A3A93FD1; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 00:49:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f49.google.com (mail-ua1-f49.google.com [209.85.222.49]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9476993FCC for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 00:49:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f49.google.com with SMTP id i5so48553280uaq.10 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 06:49:51 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lVvOJgCwwXPGhHxOWoIt5AOrGy3SqMJHEli4DirW/TM=; b=pA83oN0ChyvsL/9C+kwONmy+sPuZCB1h0YEXKprfn5fomiyMKnGM3BL+/CpFzhRFho llWgozpdMggQlqmOwYAIs0mXDHmZczL+zPd6uE2pCZbqEOWNUEZS9BQnI91pTVUFu7dK JOzSSUlUYIhZ/Kz31B0ukqJMLBfshLZVxie/wlYUVM104KpSIgBLzWskwCM3u2oQAt7d KZFKNPJoZVHpKw9pFcpmNrDROjkSqLnAxUqxSQ9IjzYS1VURX2W9zjhYAeyCeWI2z9Pw 96nUI9kCTVqjuJSi2R/STw9QpmYFolaYLnZStj2tUmrbxNk0vwhFSDjGG2T7hG3n35dq fvsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LCqPt9CTmRuQpTE0du5tczaYltlk6XODwPQ4NaLwMQ7dABGl5 w1pT66WwxUgVtR1fXnSEDmMeG+MamUVWVHLBZNY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzkTA6yuxhA0VHNn3gej1YSsaxTZcc+p48crBnA59dlQibsDWuf55tgx8Hi440pr50E3az9AiGePOfkUyILKYk= X-Received: by 2002:a67:d207:: with SMTP id y7mr15346803vsi.28.1641307790559; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 06:49:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <97f563fa-5a17-424b-acc6-07cf127f496d@localhost> In-Reply-To: From: Stuart Remphrey Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 22:49:39 +0800 Message-ID: To: Adam Thornton Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d2ceb705d4c2bfee" Subject: Re: [TUHS] moving directories in svr2 X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000d2ceb705d4c2bfee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Oh, that reminded me of SunOS 4.0 that introduced streams. Broke So I used to pine for 3.5! Agree re 2.4/2.5.1 having gotten an O/S back to being solid and very usable -- IIRC we had customers query whether they had good distribution media, because the "patch" directory was empty. No patches were introduced during beta. On Tue, 4 Jan 2022, 07:38 Adam Thornton, wrote: > 2.5.1 was the first Solaris that didn't often make me scream that I wanted > SunOS 4.1 back. > > Adam > > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:32 PM Doug McIntyre wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 04:15:08PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 3:23 PM Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> >> > > Yeah, to be fair, by the time Solaris 2.3 or 2.4 came around, it was >> > > mostly up to par. (Or maybe it was because Moore's law meant that we >> > > didn't care any more. :-) >> > >> > I have some vague memories that we had to do something like double the >> > RAM in our SPARCstations to make Solaris 2 feel comfortable. At the >> > time, that was a pretty serious outlay in an academic department. >> > 2.5.1 felt like the first version that was _truly_ usable. >> >> I'd agree, 2.4 was pretty slow and chunky, 2.5 was alright, but 2.5.1 was >> quite usable and stable. >> Also by this time, the hardware was going in directions that SunOS >> wouldn't keep up with. >> >> >> --000000000000d2ceb705d4c2bfee Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oh, that reminded me of SunOS 4.0 that introduced streams= . Broke=C2=A0
So I used to pine for 3.5!

Agree re 2.4/2.5.1 having gotten an O/S b= ack to being solid and very usable -- IIRC we had customers query whether t= hey had good distribution media, because the "patch" directory wa= s empty. No patches were introduced during beta.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2022, 07:38 Adam Thornton, <athornton@gmail.com> wrote:
2.5.1 was the first Solaris that didn= 't often make me scream that I wanted SunOS 4.1 back.

Adam


On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:32 PM Doug McIntyre <= me= rlyn@geeks.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 04:15:08PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote: > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 3:23 PM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> = wrote:

> > Yeah, to be fair, by the time Solaris 2.3 or 2.4 came around, it = was
> > mostly up to par.=C2=A0 (Or maybe it was because Moore's law = meant that we
> > didn't care any more.=C2=A0 :-)
>
> I have some vague memories that we had to do something like double the=
> RAM in our SPARCstations to make Solaris 2 feel comfortable. At the > time, that was a pretty serious outlay in an academic department.
> 2.5.1 felt like the first version that was _truly_ usable.

I'd agree, 2.4 was pretty slow and chunky, 2.5 was alright, but 2.5.1 w= as quite usable and stable.
Also by this time, the hardware was going in directions that SunOS wouldn&#= 39;t keep up with.


--000000000000d2ceb705d4c2bfee--