From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2474 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2009 16:50:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 2460 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2009 16:50:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from comm.purplecow.org (HELO comm.purplecow.org) (210.87.62.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:50:37 +0000 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Received: from interact.purplecow.org ([127.0.0.1]) by comm.purplecow.org (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-6.03 (built Mar 14 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KSU009DKPGBR550@comm.purplecow.org> for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:50:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from interact.purplecow.org ([10.0.66.17] helo=interact.purplecow.org) with IPv4:25 by ASSP.nospam; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:50:35 +1100 Received: from 10.0.66.17 (proxying for unknown) (SquirrelMail authenticated user dclarke@blastwave.org) by interact.purplecow.org with HTTP; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:50:35 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <37061.10.0.66.17.1257785435.squirrel@interact.purplecow.org> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:50:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Updating Primary and Secondary platform list for gcc-4.5 ??? From: Dennis Clarke To: Rainer Orth Cc: dclarke@blastwave.org, Eric Botcazou , "Kaveh R. GHAZI" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Reply-to: dclarke@blastwave.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.11 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 >> you can buy a support contract for it then you have a valid platform in >> commercial use. > > You can get support for the OpenSolaris distribution if you like I just went and looked ... you are correct, they have three levels in fact. It looks like $1080 for premium, $720 is standard business hours $324 is patches and updates with email tech support I think. So that makes it a real commercial platform in my mind. > is still very much work in progress, not a stable platform we can rely on. However, Solaris 10 was also a moving platoform in its first few releases but no one would debate it as a commercial grade release or not. I think Opensolaris must be looked at as viable and commercial grade. I am not at all biased in this regardless of the fact that I have been involved one way or another in the OpenSolaris project since day one. I'm very much an outside guy that just loves to experiment and perhaps even attempt to help where I can. >> Having said that .. I see roughly 30% of all my traffic from SunOS5.11 >> users on either Solaris Nevada or OpenSolaris beta releases. >> >> The question should be ... do we in the community end user world see >> SunOS5.11 as being a de facto release? I would say yes. > > Certainly not, even if it is widely used (primarily on laptops, I > suppose). Well, would Fedora Core on PowerPC or Ubuntu or Debian ( any release ) be considered a platform or does that just fall under a wide umbrella of "Linux" ? Some of those are barely used at all anymore. Consider running Linux on a DEC Alpha. Who does that anymore? Is this a popularity measurement or is this based on something more tangible and quantitative like "commercially supported"? >> Solaris 10 is the enterprise class commercial grade Solaris release and >> it is staying put for a long long long time yet. > > Indeed, and even if we chose sparc-sun-solaris2.10 as the primary platform > doesn't mean that *-*-solaris2.11 doesn't work, quite the contrary: I > regularly test both and try to keep them working. I test everything on *-*-solaris2.8 which by way of the ABI golden rule instantly qualifies as tested on anything up to SunOS2.10. It does not imply SunOS2.11 however. -- Dennis