[rescue] Solaris 8 Differences

[Dave McGuire]

On February 1, Thomas Steffen wrote:
> X is a problem of its on. The free Xservers seem to be a bit flaky on
> Sparcs, at least the one from Debian 2.2 sucks. Debian 3.0 isn't ready
> yet, but there have been problem reported, too. The Solaris server is
> better.

  By "free Xservers" I assume you mean "free Xservers under Linux",
otherwise this is absolutely not true...For many years my main desktop
machine was running NetBSD/sparc (on various hardware) running X
full-time.  It's rock solid.

  What hardware do you think the majority of that X code was DEVELOPED
on, anyway?  XFree86 is a little flaky on non-x86 hardware because
it's only recently been ported to non-x86 hardware.  It was based on
the original MIT X implementation, but became more and more
x86-specific over the years...now it's being brought back into the
realm of portability, and it's a rocky road.

  The "regular" MIT X code, though, is what pretty much everything else
runs...including SPARCstations.  MIT X on that hardware has been
stable for the better part of eleven years.

> Imho having only 256 colours at a maximum resolution of 1152x864 just
> isn't worth it. Getting a cheap Matrox as second or third graphics
> card in a PC is *much* faster at higher resolution/colours. 

  1152x900.  And it's only faster until you try to do more than one
thing at a time. :)

> > My Classic runs -quite- efficiently at 24M with OpenBSD, but that's
> > with console
> 
> OpenBSD and Linux should be fine for console use. Solaris sucks,
> because it has no frame buffer support and no virtual terminals.

  Solaris has no frame buffer support?  What are you talking about?

     -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL         "Less talk.  More synthohol." --Lt. Worf