Re: sparc station

Royce Williams wrote:
>
> Agreed. Should be the same from the OS level, other than the stuff that
> talks directly to the PROM, etc. In my experience with 8 and 9, most
> of the install and functionality are the same. Haven't done an install
> of 10 beta 5 yet. I'd be interested in hearing how that goes for you.
>
> If you do go the SPARCstation route, be aware that 10 requires 128M at
> a minimum, and a 120MHz chip is recommended. You might be better off
> with one of the Ultras. My SPARCclassic (64M, 40MHz) and even my
> SS5 (128M, 170MHz) have Debian on them instead because it was unwieldy
> to keep them patched at those capacities.
>
> And boy, do I wish they had a sparc32 port of FreeBSD. :)
>
> -royce
>

I loaded Freebsd on my ultra 1 170mhz and it worked great, right up
until I wanted postgres and some other software packages to compile on
that odd platform and that proved to be very difficult at best.

You would be much better off to run linux on the sun hardware, but even
then you will need to jump though hoops to compile some stuff.

I'm sure that some will disagree, but I haven't found much use for sun
hardware as of late. Unless you need something very powerful hardware
wise, or are running a software package only supported on a commercial
OS, I find that it's cheaper and easier to run a bsd or linux on a nice
Intel box. Now the bsd's are nice and I believe them to be more stable
than linux, but they lack important features such as LVM, nsswitch, and
a journaling fs. Yes, I know there are work-arounds, but far and wide
linux meets most of my server needs.

schu
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Thu Aug 12 09:00:02 2004