home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!ncar!noao!arizona!naucse!sunset
- From: jdc@sunset (John Campbell)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.admin
- Subject: Re: avoiding Solaris
- Message-ID: <5901@naucse.cse.nau.edu>
- Date: 19 Nov 92 04:20:00 GMT
- References: <15477@auspex-gw.auspex.com>
- Sender: news@naucse.cse.nau.edu
- Lines: 27
- Nntp-Posting-Host: sunset.cse.nau.edu
- Originator: jdc@sunset.cse.nau.edu
-
- From article <15477@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, by guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris):
- :
- : Speaking of DEC, how much more like SV than Ultrix is their OSF/1
- : release? I had the general impression that the OSF/1 programming
- : interface generally went the SV way in those cases where you have to
- : choose (as opposed to, say, "sockets vs. STREAMS/TLI", where they could
- : offer both, just as SVR4 does), and that the administrative utilities,
- : or at least some of them (e.g., "init"), were SVR2-flavor or
- : SVR3-flavor?
- :
- : (IBM, HP, and SGI have, I think, already chosen the SV way in most of
- : the cases where you have to choose....)
-
- Yes, this would be interesting to know. Also, who else is soon to
- or has already forced a binary incompatibility on their installed base?
-
- Also, could someone summarize the advantages (again) of ELF over COFF
- and how OSF/1 fairs in the extended language arena? If, as some
- in this thread have suggested, Solaris becomes a vendor decision
- point then it would be nice to know what other vendors are doing.
- (I seem to remember there were some very good reasons for ELF if 4th
- generation or even object oriented languages were important at your
- site.)
-
- --
- John Campbell John.Campbell@nau.edu
- jdc@sunset.cse.nau.edu JDC@NAUVAX.UCC.NAU.EDU
-