[rescue] Re: Re: OH YEA??? [was: Re: Ultra?]

[Dave McGuire]

On August 3, Chris Hedemark wrote:
> I agree, for a real server application like a 1,500+ seat squid
> deployment, a U5 with IDE just doesn't cut the mustard.

  We can agree on that at least.

> But for a desktop machine to do some light development work on, it is a
> fine machine.  I also happen to be throwing some server-ish tasks at it
> but for a much smaller network (my home).

  I don't know anyone who does "light" development work.

> The discussion though was on SS10 vs. U5, and the mistaken notion that
> somehow the SCSI in the SS10 makes it a better machine than the U5 which
> lacks SCSI.  My argument is, for what both machines were intended for,
> the U5 is "good enough".  Sun made real workstations at the same time as
> the U5 for people who needed real workstations.

  You may be willing to settle for something that's "good enough".
I'm not.

  I wouldn't use an SS10 over an Ultra5 these days, because Solaris
has [FINALLY] gotten good enough to use and it's too damn slow on
anything older than an Ultra1.  But the SS10 is a much better-built
machine than the Ultra5 will ever be, and will last a WHOLE lot
longer.  That's not a matter of opinion.

         -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire                     "I haven't worn pants in 14 months!"
St. Petersburg, FL                                   -Pete Wargo