From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 18 17:31:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA19137 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:31:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from lightside.com (hamby1.lightside.net [207.67.176.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA19129 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:31:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by lightside.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA00792; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:32:17 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:32:17 -0800 From: jehamby@lightside.com (Jake Hamby) Message-Id: <199702190132.RAA00792@lightside.com> To: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, toneil@visigenic.com Subject: Re: Sun Workshop compiler vs. GCC? Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: 3vON6weW9SP0CQvvF9+A5A== Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Tim O'Neil writes: > >I installed on a standard clone, no special cards, etc. Solaris was by > >far the easiest, well, maybe the disk partitioning is a bit confusing. > > I have to agree, installing solaris is like a hand-held tour through > a park. My favorite aspect of Solaris installation is that you can interactively choose EXACTLY which packages you want to install, whereas FreeBSD offers only a limited amount of granularity. It's also nice that you can script this (with JumpStart) for setting up a lab of machines. The best aspect of FreeBSD installation is that it offers to set up a lot of things afterwards (adding users, setting up NFS, Apache, SAMBA, etc.), whereas you have to manually hunt down and install most of that software for Solaris (unless you've bought a Netra, which is preconfigured). > >If I was a user, I'd also like the Solaris boot the best, too. > > This I don't see. As soon as its installed and ready to go, it looks > like any other posix compliant os. Just as cryptic (so to speak) as > any other. BSD, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, they all look the same to me at > the console. Maybe he means the CDE login screen, which is clearly better than anything I've seen on FreeBSD (XDM doesn't even come close!). > >A lot of people here will disagree with me, perhaps, but when I look at > >the bootup screen for Solaris2, I see a finish built for users who don't > >know or care about hardware details etc (makes FreeBSD and others look > > Your right, I think a lot of people will disagree. I don't see much > difference here either. My sun box probes scsi ports and whatnot just > the same as my bsd box at boot time. Yes, he's definitely talking about the CDE bootup screen (which isn't installed by default in Solaris 2.5.x, but will probably be the default for Solaris 2.6). -- Jake