> > At least you have far better control of how NIS,NIS+, files and in the 
> > case of hosts DNS interact.  SunOS 4.X really sucked in this regard.
> > Heck, you couldn't even use DNS without a NIS server.  (Ok, so there 
> > were libc hacks that mostly worked around the problem, I don't view that
> > as a clean solution.)
> 
>   Eeeek.  NIS operability as a reason to use Solaris.  Sounds like
> their marketing is becoming more effective these days.  I wouldn't run
> NIS if you paid me. :)

No, *DNS* operability. This is a valid reason, IMHO. Certainly you can
do the libc trick on SunOS (I've done it myself on all the SunOS systems
I've been responsible for), but it's so much nicer to have the support
built in from the start.

As for another reason, how about *stability*? We run a decent sized News
server on an Ultrasparc/2.5.1/NetApp system. It's been working very well
for us for about a year so far, with *no* crash of any kind. It's by far
the most stable News server I've ever run (and I've tried SunOS, HP-UX
and Digital Unix).

>   SunOS4 off the CDROM sucks rocks.  What I'm trying to say is...I
> think it's got far greater *potential* to be a good OS than Solaris
> does.

I might say that SunOS4 *had* great potential, way back. But Sun stopped
developing it. The world has moved on, and today I find it very hard to
imagine any place where I'd choose SunOS 4.1.x over Solaris 2.5.1.

Anyway, this is no longer NetBSD related, so maybe we should take it to
private email?

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no