From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Jun 30 18:37:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA29401 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cliffy.statsci.com (root@cliffy.statsci.com [206.63.206.72]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA29388 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plum.statsci.com (plum [206.63.206.43]) by cliffy.statsci.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/Hub) with SMTP id SAA22127; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:37:40 -0700 Received: from plum.statsci.com [206.63.206.43] with smtp by plum.statsci.com with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.3 #3) id m0wirsx-0007RHC; Mon, 30 Jun 97 18:37 PDT Message-Id: To: Wes Peters - Softweyr LLC cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS mounts on NT with Hummingbird Maestro References: <199707010053.SAA22133@xmission.xmission.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:53:47." <199707010053.SAA22133@xmission.xmission.com> From: Scott Blachowicz Reply-to: scott@statsci.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <14295.867721058.1@plum.statsci.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:37:38 -0700 Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Wes Peters - Softweyr LLC wrote: > Do you actually develop UNIX applications? Certainly not during the > Sun-sponsored "upgrade to Slowlaris 2.0" fiasco. You couldn't do this Yeah, yeah...I was thinking of a general rule (and the warning that you get when the shared libraries are slightly out of date from SunOS 4.1.4 to 4.1.3, for instance)...or maybe a "sometimes good" rule...or ...whatever. We've been doing builds on SunOS 4.1.3u1, 5.3, HP-UX 9.x, IRIX 5.x, AIX 3.2.x (from what I remember from our last major release), DEC OSF/1 3.2, and they all basically work on later versions of their respective OS's, I think. > with Solaris 2.0, 2.1, or 2.2, because they kept making all this > incompatible upgrades between revisions, and NOBDOY was dumb enough > to stay on 2.0 or 2.2 for longer than it took them to slide the CD-ROM > into the drive. Agreed...a specific instance (albeit one from a company with a large market share :-)). Of course, I have this vague recollection that at the time people tended to try to avoid 2.x until some "it's OK" concensus was reached...that is, the stayed with SunOS 4.x for a while. > Your strategy is partially useful on HP-UX, if you don't mind a 15% > performance hit (running 9.0x apps on 10.0x). Well...I'm not sure what the status of 10.x was for our last release, but I'd bet that if we'd built for 10.x, we wouldn't be able to run the product on 9.x. It's a lot more practical for us to maintain one version of a product for a given platform, if possible, if it has reasonable performance. Vendors can maintain some for of useability/compatibility the other way around, but with the current state of crystal ball technology it's hard for the 9.x OS folks to support 10.x applications :-). Scott Blachowicz Ph: 206/283-8802x240 Mathsoft (Data Analysis Products Div) 1700 Westlake Ave N #500 scott@statsci.com Seattle, WA USA 98109 Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org