On 1/26/21 10:56 PM, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [not replying privately even though this is an old thread from back
> in the time when I was still enjoying a care-free summer vacation,
<thumbs up>
> and even though Grant and/or his mailer set "reply-to" to be his
> own address, not the list address,
It's not me or my mailer setting the Reply-To:. It seems as if the
mailing list is setting that on senders who's domain uses DMARC, which
mine does.
> but because I'm still having rDNS issues and Grant's mailer won't
> let mine deliver to him...]
I've added central... to my hosts file, so hopefully you can email me
directly if you want to.
> Note that "Solaris" is a marketing name for a whole OS package
> including the kernel, base system, user interface, and even some
> applications.
<head tilt>
That's ... a different explanation than I've heard before.
I'm not saying I disagree with it, just that it's completely new to me.
> On the other hand "SunOS" the name of the base system OS (i.e. kernel
> and userland).
Please elaborate. Including using the same terms for both names. How
does "userland" compare to "base system" and / or "user interface"?
I'm also curious what differentiates between SunOS and a minimal install
of Solaris.
Solaris 2.x == SunOS 5.x + OpenWindows
Solaris 1.x == SunOS 4.x + OpenWindows
Solaris, back in the day, was SunOS + OpenWindows.
> The name "SunOS" pre-dated the name "Solaris" but continues on as
> the name of the base OS within the Solaris package.
I thought the "SunOS" vs "Solaris" was a marketing change around the
time SunOS / Solaris transitioned from being more BSD to more Sys V.
No. Solaris 2 was System V. Solaris 1 was BSD. Though it did pop up around SunOS 4.1 time frame when it became clear that SunOS 5 would be System V based and a big rewrite.
When Solbourne chose their name, Sun told them they could pick anything they wanted, except Solaris because they were going to use that to market SunOS.
I also thought that the retention of "SunOS" in the kernel name and
versioning was for backward compatibility.
Not entirely... It was very explicit in the marketing literature that SunOS 5 was the kernel for Solaris 2, but that Solaris 2 also included other components like OpenWindows. The status of the base userland tools (eg /bin/ls) wasn't ever talked about, but was generally understood to be in the SunOS side of the world...
> Sun even back-pedaled and re-branded SunSO 4 as Solaris 1.0 before
> the switch from BSD to something Sun liked to think was akin to SVR4.
I was not aware that some of -- what I'll call -- the naming shenanigans
happened to SunOS 4. I was only aware of things at SunOS 5.
Yes. I had (but no longer have) a Solaris 1.1 Sparc CD that had SunOS 4.1.4 and OpenWindows 1.1 on it. I think Solaris 1.0 had 4.1.3 on it.
I worked for Solbourne Computers in Longmont CO in the early 1990s and this distinction was what drove our group to create OI (Object Interface) set of tools that implemented the OpenWindows and Motif look and feel since it wasn't clear that Sun would license OpenWindows when Solbourne started and we needed a desktop story...
Warner