4 Dec
2002
4 Dec
'02
10:37 a.m.
I have old Sparc Sun machine which I would like to run on Solaris 2.4, not newer. I have
Solaris 8 from a few years ago when I paid Sun $75 for CDs but I do not want to run this
version or the 2.5 I have from another machine. Does anyone have Solaris 2.4 CDs that they
could sell or copy for me? Please note that I am not looking to violate copyright law but
I do need to get 2.4 and not some later or earlier version of Solaris. Alternatively, does
anyone know anyplace where I could obtain Solaris 2.4? (I have watched Ebay for 6 months
without seeing a copy of Solaris 2.4 for sale)
Bradley Slavik
4 Dec
4 Dec
4 p.m.
At 03:39 PM 12/4/02 -0600, you wrote:
Does anyone have Solaris 2.4 CDs that they could sell
or copy for me?
Please
note that I am not looking to violate copyright law
but I do need to get
2.4
and not some later or earlier version of Solaris.
The way I remember this, the first release that bore the "Solaris"
name when released was 2.5 . Before it was called SunOS, of which
the last release was 4.1.4 if I remember correctly. After Solaris 2.5,
the previous SunOS 4.x releases were renamed "Solaris 2.4". I think
that the list of releases that I played with at one point or another is as
follows:
SunOS 4.1.1 Rev B
SunOS 4.1.4, aka Solaris 2.4 (or was it 4.1.3?)
Solaris 2.5
Solaris 2.6
Solaris 2.7
Solaris 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
4:31 p.m.
--- Carlos Murillo <carlos_murillo(a)epm.net.co> wrote:
Right idea, wrong version numbers.
SunOS 4.1 was the last major version of SunOS. It was BSD-derived and
very comfortable to those of us who grew up on VAXen. While SunOS 4
was still a current product, Sun came out with Solaris 2.1. It's
underlying operating system number was 5.1. Solaris 2.2 came out
as the "operating environment" that included "SunOS 5.2" and so on.
After Solaris had been around for a while, Sun retroactively named
SunOS to a Solaris 1 number. I don't recall the exact mapping, but
IIRC, Solaris 1.1.1 was also known as SunOS 4.1.3_u1, nearly the
last SunOS there was. I _think_ 4.1.4 was called Solaris 1.1.2, but
I am digging deep into memory.
As for Solaris itself, I never was compelled to use it until about 2.4
came out. There were apparently some radical internal differences
up to that point, requiring new third-party product reinstalles, etc.,
but I was not party to that. I really got my wings with Solaris 2.5.1
and 2.6. I'm running Solaris 8 at home (haven't bothered to go up
to 9 yet).
So... Solaris 1.x is the new name for SunOS 4.x and Solaris 2.x and up
are internally Solaris 5.x, etc.
Hope this clarifies things. If not, I'm sure there's a Solaris numbering
FAQ at sunhelp.org or someplace similar.
-ethan
At 03:39 PM 12/4/02 -0600, you wrote:
> Does anyone have Solaris 2.4 CDs that they could sell or copy for me?
> Please note that I am not looking to violate copyright law but I do
need
to get 2.4
and not some later or earlier version of Solaris.
The way I remember this, the first release that bore the "Solaris"
name when released was 2.5 . Before it was called SunOS, of which
the last release was 4.1.4 if I remember correctly. After Solaris 2.5,
the previous SunOS 4.x releases were renamed "Solaris 2.4". I think
that the list of releases that I played with at one point or another is
as follows:
SunOS 4.1.1 Rev B
SunOS 4.1.4, aka Solaris 2.4 (or was it 4.1.3?)
Solaris 2.5
Solaris 2.6
Solaris 2.7
Solaris 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
5 Dec
5 Dec
1:32 a.m.
At 07:33 PM 12/4/02 -0800, you wrote:
Right idea, wrong version numbers.
SunOS 4.1 was the last major version of SunOS. It was BSD-derived and
very comfortable to those of us who grew up on VAXen. While SunOS 4
was still a current product, Sun came out with Solaris 2.1. It's
underlying operating system number was 5.1. Solaris 2.2 came out
as the "operating environment" that included "SunOS 5.2" and so on.
After Solaris had been around for a while, Sun retroactively named
SunOS to a Solaris 1 number.
Ok, so I got all my numbers messed up. But I did remember that Sun
had played a retroactive trick on version numbers. I also remember
the Great Recompile/ReBuy that we had to go through when we
went from SunOS(BSD) to Solaris (SYSV). And all of the hard drives
suddenly became insufficient...
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
5:21 a.m.
--- Carlos Murillo <carlos_murillo(a)epm.net.co> wrote:
...But I did remember that Sun
had played a retroactive trick on version numbers. I also remember
the Great Recompile/ReBuy that we had to go through when we
went from SunOS(BSD) to Solaris (SYSV). And all of the hard drives
suddenly became insufficient...
Yep. That's pretty much how it was.
I heard enough horror stories from guys at Ohio State about Solarises
2.1 through 2.3 that I intentionally sat on the sidelines until I was
forced to go with Solaris 2.4. By then, the worst of it had passed.
I didn't have any real complaints about it or 2.5.1.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
1:46 p.m.
Despite all the horror stories, even 2.1 wasn't that bad.
I ran a production Solaris 2.1 server at Amoco
back in 92. Sparc 10 boot and application server.
Ran fine for 3 years before natural business politics upgraded it.
Kelly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ethan Dicks" <erd_6502(a)yahoo.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Solaris 2.4
I heard enough horror stories from guys at Ohio State about Solarises
2.1 through 2.3 that I intentionally sat on the sidelines until I was
forced to go with Solaris 2.4. By then, the worst of it had passed.
I didn't have any real complaints about it or 2.5.1.
-ethan
16 Dec
16 Dec
1:56 p.m.
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 07:28 AM, Carlos Murillo wrote:
Ok, so I got all my numbers messed up. But I did
remember that Sun
had played a retroactive trick on version numbers. I also remember
the Great Recompile/ReBuy that we had to go through when we
went from SunOS(BSD) to Solaris (SYSV). And all of the hard drives
suddenly became insufficient...
...and the CPUs, until at least 2.6 or so.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "Why would a brothel need
St. Petersburg, FL a streaming media server?" -Kevin
7 Dec
7 Dec
12:42 p.m.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 10:33 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
After Solaris had been around for a while, Sun
retroactively named
SunOS to a Solaris 1 number. I don't recall the exact mapping, but
IIRC, Solaris 1.1.1 was also known as SunOS 4.1.3_u1, nearly the
last SunOS there was. I _think_ 4.1.4 was called Solaris 1.1.2, but
I am digging deep into memory.
This is correct...SunOS 4.1.4 is Solaris 1.1.2. There was also a
SunOS 4.1.4_U1 release, but I don't recall if it had a separate Solaris
release number.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "Why would a brothel need
St. Petersburg, FL a streaming media server?" -Kevin
4 Dec
4 Dec
4:47 p.m.
Quothe Carlos Murillo, from writings of Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:51:13PM -0500:
The way I remember this, the first release that bore
the "Solaris"
name when released was 2.5 . Before it was called SunOS, of which
I've got a Solaris 2.4 distribution.
the last release was 4.1.4 if I remember correctly.
After Solaris 2.5,
Kindly note that what's known as SunOS (e.g. 4.1.1), as the name for
the complete OS, was a very different operating system from what is
known as Solaris. The former was based on BSD UNIX (and includes the
text-only games like adventure! ...like any real distribution of UNIX
should), whereas the later is SysV based and was apparently designed
to appeal more to the boring and humor-deprived biz 'droids than the
hackers. In many ways, I miss my 3/60 running 4.1.1, although I don't
miss the slow speed and the many gaping security holes, Y2K problems,
etc. Waiting what seemed like hours for something to compile, was, in
retrospect, not fun... although it seemed like a fast machine at the
time. :-)
--
Copyright (C) 2002 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
8:32 p.m.
New subject: SunOS/Solaris naming (was: Re: Solaris 2.4)
Some of you got pretty close, but most of you were way off.
The name "Solaris" is a Sun marketing designation for the product
combining some version of SunOS plus OpenWindows.
SunOS prior to 5.0 (Solaris 2.x) is a 4BSD derivative (via Sun co-founder
Bill Joy). As of 5.0 it became an SVR4 derivative. Note that development
continued on the SunOS 4.x line after the introduction of 5.0, since it
represented such a huge shift from the 4.x world (and was horrendously
bug-ridden until 5.4). After Solaris 2.6, the marketing department got
hold of things and dropped the "2.", with the result that the following
release is named Solaris 7.
The chronology, starting somewhere in the 4.0 days:
[...]
------------- SunOS 4.0.3 --------------- 05/89
------------- SunOS 4.1 --------------- 03/90
Solaris 1.0 SunOS 4.1.1B OpenWindows 2.0 02/91
Solaris 1.0.1 SunOS 4.1.2 OpenWindows 2.0 12/91
Solaris 2.0 SunOS 5.0 OpenWindows 3.0.1 07/92
Solaris 1.1A SunOS 4.1.3 OpenWindows 3.0 08/92
Solaris 2.1 SunOS 5.1 OpenWindows 3.1 12/92
Solaris 2.2 SunOS 5.2 OpenWindows 3.2 05/93
Solaris 2.3 SunOS 5.3 OpenWindows 3.3 11/93
Solaris 1.1.1 SunOS 4.1.3_U1 OpenWindows 3.0_U1 12/93
Solaris 2.4 SunOS 5.4 OpenWindows 3.4 08/94
Solaris 1.1.2 SunOS 4.1.4 OpenWindows 3_414 11/94
Solaris 2.5 SunOS 5.5 OpenWindows 3.5 11/95
Solaris 2.5.1 SunOS 5.5.1 OpenWindows 3.5 05/96
Solaris 2.6 SunOS 5.6 OpenWindows 3.6 08/97
Solaris 7 SunOS 5.7 OpenWindows 3.6.1 10/98
Solaris 8 SunOS 5.8 OpenWindows 3.6.2
There are a few maintenance/hardware releases in the Solaris 1.x days
that I left out for clarity. Otherwise it should be complete and
accurate.
I hope it clears things up.
ok
r.
6 Dec
6 Dec
2:59 a.m.
New subject: SunOS/Solaris naming (was: Re: Solaris 2.4)
At 02:31 AM 12/5/02 -0500, you wrote:
Some of you got pretty close, but most of you were way off.
The name "Solaris" is a Sun marketing designation for the product
combining some version of SunOS plus OpenWindows.
... but the name "Solaris" is an after-the-fact invention
for many of these releases; I don't see any mention of Solaris
in my 4.1.1 Rev. B CDs or docs. Thanks for clearing up the
version numbers mess.
The chronology, starting somewhere in the 4.0 days:
-snip:only two interesting releases left in-
Solaris 1.1.1 SunOS 4.1.3_U1 OpenWindows 3.0_U1
12/93
Solaris 1.1.2 SunOS 4.1.4 OpenWindows 3_414 11/94
I hope it clears things up.
It does, thanks. So, could anyone make ISO copies of the
SUNBIN releases of the two versions above and put them
on the web?
I did not remember 4.1.4 as being released that late, though
I know for sure that I was using it in '95 and early '96.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
12:15 p.m.
New subject: SunOS/Solaris naming (was: Re: Solaris 2.4)
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Carlos Murillo wrote:
... but the name "Solaris" is an
after-the-fact invention
for many of these releases; I don't see any mention of Solaris
in my 4.1.1 Rev. B CDs or docs.
Not at all. I have CDs published by Sun designated "Solaris 1.0.1 (a
release of SunOS 4.1.2 and OpenWindows 2.0)", from that time.
http://www.bears.org/~red/typewritten/Software/index.html#Sun
Really, the confusion stems from Sun continuing to differentiate the
"Solaris" product from "SunOS" until the SunOS 5 days.
It does, thanks. So, could anyone make ISO copies of
the
SUNBIN releases of the two versions above and put them
on the web?
I think Sun would take a dim view of that. Contact me off list and I'll
see if there might not be another way I could help.
ok
r.
7 Dec
7 Dec
12:39 p.m.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 09:51 PM, Carlos Murillo wrote:
The way I remember this, the first release that bore
the "Solaris"
name when released was 2.5 . Before it was called SunOS, of which
the last release was 4.1.4 if I remember correctly. After Solaris 2.5,
the previous SunOS 4.x releases were renamed "Solaris 2.4". I think
that the list of releases that I played with at one point or another
is as
follows:
SunOS 4.1.1 Rev B
SunOS 4.1.4, aka Solaris 2.4 (or was it 4.1.3?)
Solaris 2.5
Solaris 2.6
Solaris 2.7
Solaris 8
Nono, definitely not. SunOS 4.x is also known as Solaris 1.x.
Solaris 1.1.2 is SunOS 4.1.4. All Solaris 2.x releases are the
SysV-based stuff that current Solaris descends from.
Solaris 2.3 was released (and rammed down our throats) by Sun,
although it was so slow and unstable that it didn't enjoy widespread
acceptance. Thank heaven. I don't know if 2.0, 2.1, or 2.2 ever saw
the light of day, but I never saw them. My company had test machines
running 2.3 (and subsequent releases) from when that version was
released.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "Why would a brothel need
St. Petersburg, FL a streaming media server?" -Kevin
12:21 p.m.
fire(a)dls.net (fire(a)dls.net) wrote :
I have old Sparc Sun machine which I would like to run
on Solaris 2.4, not newer. I have Solaris 8 from a few years ago when I paid Sun $75 for
CDs but I do not want to run this version or the 2.5 I have from another machine. Does
anyone have Solaris 2.4 CDs that they could sell or copy for me? Please note that I am not
looking to violate copyright law but I do need to get 2.4 and not some later or earlier
version of Solaris. Alternatively, does anyone know anyplace where I could obtain Solaris
2.4? (I have watched Ebay for 6 months without seeing a copy of Solaris 2.4 for sale)
If this is what you're looking for:
/vol/dev/dsk/c0t2d0/sol_2_4_hw1194_sparc/s0 15134 13436 186 99%
/cdrom/sol_2_4_hw1194_sparc/s0
...
then I do have the cd, I'll grab a copy of it and put for you on FTP if it's
okay for you. :)
Agreed?
Cheers,
--
freddy
7890
days inactive
7902
days old
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
carlos_murillo＠epm.net.co -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
fire＠dls.net -
kfergaso＠swbell.net -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
nrg＠sun.com -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
red＠bears.org