[rescue] Recommended patches for old versions

[David Holland]

YMMV,

Here's my recollection of the various Solaris's..

2.0 - Lets pretend it never happend. :-)  

2.1x86 was at least "usable" - I used it to develop most of the
Solarisx86/XFree86 OS support code.  (Albeit I did find one or two
kernel bugs during that timeframe.) 

2.2 - Never saw it. 

2.3 - Patch-o-rama.  Remember, only use every other one.  (Its the
'stable' tree. To steal a Linux phrase.)   :-) 

2.4 - Not particularly noteworthy.  Better than its predecessors. 

2.5.1 (x86/Sparc) is reasonably stable, however its feature lacking by
today's standards. 

2.6 - Also not noteworthy.  

2.7 - Eh, ok. 

2.8 - We've ran into too many of its farking performance bottlenecks its
not funny.  Fairly stable if you don't actually push it to DO anything.
:-? 

2.9 has demonstrated to us (Work) that either Moe, Larry or Curley has
started managing the communications between Sun's Applications people,
and Sun's OS people.

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 09:13, Loomis, Rip wrote: 
> > > Was there ever a recommended patch cluster for 2.1 or 2.0?
> > I thought 2.3 WAS the patch for 2.0->2.2
> 
> Yeah.  Running Solaris 2.0 through 2.2 is as pointless as running
> IRIX 6.1 -- even if that's the only version you have, it's so
> friggin' painful to live in that world that it's worth getting
> a newer version.  Any HW that will run 2.0 will either run SunOS
> 4.1.[34] or will run at least Solaris 2.5.1.
> 
> I'm all for continuing to run *good* older versions of operating
> systems--but I've never met anyone who actually can defend Solaris
> 2.x where x<5 -- and it's not really until about Solaris 7
> (SunOS 5.7) that there are enough fixes and Good Things to make
> me happy with running it in production.
> 
>   --Rip
> _______________________________________________
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue