> > >> Note that 4.4bsd also supports NFS over IP/tcp (that is BSDI, NetBSD, > >> FreeBSD, and Linix) which [imop] are a far more complete and reliable > >> OS's then Solaris 2. > > > >Bit of an explosive statement that Pete :-) > > > > nope... it is just the truth. > they work They are superb OS's for (ex :-) hackers like u & me who dont mind fixing things that are broke. But they're probably not for everyone. Comparing them with Solaris 2 is a little like comparing apples & oranges. To be fair, Solaris 2's kernel is probably a lot more complicated (it is multi-threaded, supports multiple CPUs etc) than any of the above, and I imagine it has more in common with AIX than Linux. > and are secure, I dont believe that and I dont think you do either :-) > Solaris 2 crashes alot Solaris 2 is still pretty new code - I know the SVR4 code has been around a long time but Sun have made many major changes to it, I'm sure. Given the complexity of the kernel and the age of the code, they probably havent done too badly. As for the other UNIX's you mention - in my experience - the BSD's based on the NET/2 code are - at best - as stable as Solaris 1. Those based on the 4.4-lite code are probably significantly less stable than either Solaris 1 or 2. Thats no slur on the 4.4-lite OS's; just that its very new code. In the time since 4.4 was released, they've progressed amazingly well and will continue to get better. As for Linux, who knows. Rumour has it that its networking originated from a system using two tin cans and a piece of string :-) > and it insecure. I dont doubt it, but so is every other UNIX I've come across! When someone lends [8LGM] a Solaris 2 box, we'll see how it compares :-) Cheers -- ------------------------------------------+----------------------------------- Mailed using ELM on FreeBSD | Karl Strickland PGP 2.3a Public Key Available. | Internet: karl@bagpuss.demon.co.uk |