Original message:
> I am after an opinion from you all as to the wisdom of using the
> SVR4 environment on our OSF/1 boxes.
>
> We have a number of users and administrators who are currently very
> familiar with SVR4 and no-one who is familiar with OSF/1.
>
> It seemed like a good move to use the SVR4 environment.
>
> I have some concerns however and am debating whether we should instead
> bite the bullet and use vanilla OSF/1 instead, for example:
>
> * will our support be more difficult both internally and through
> digital due to the interaction between OSF/1 and the SVR4 environment?
>
> * will layered products sometimes break as they perhaps don't expect
> SVR4?
>
> * will SVR4 always be supported immediately with new releases of OSF/1
> etc?
>
> * should root be an SVR4 user, if not what real benefit do we get at
> the administration level?
OVERVIEW:
3 replies, one from someone who uses the SVR4 environment.
There are problems if you want to run with C2 security.
Layered products shouldn't have a problem.
Recommendation not to put root under SVR4.
All in all it doesn't seem like anyone much is using the SVR4 environment
which makes me think...
FULL REPLIES:
> From: intrepid!tb_at_uunet.uu.net (Tom Barkanic X7264)
>
> I recently played around with the System V environment from the companion CD
> that came with V3.0 upgrade. Since I din't have a license for it I could only
> look at some of the stuff but it does not replace any exisiting functionality
> The environment is accessed through new paths and aliases. You can also call
> DEC and get an evaluation license to try it out.
>
> From: William H. Magill <magill_at_dccs.upenn.edu>
>
> I have the SV environment installed, but users are defaulted to OSF.
>
> One thing is true.... SV does not install under C2. You must flip back
> to BSD, intall SV and then flip back to C2.
>
> The primary rason that I installed it was to get the SV accounting tools.
> I happen to prefer OSF and leave root in the OSF environment, but it is
> trivial to flip the environments, you just change the .profile (I use the
> ksh for everybody by default).
>
> I don't know for certain, but I believe that layered products won't know or
> care if they have the SV environment available, they will default to OSF.
>
>
> So far (under 3.0) I haven't seen any conflicts other than - I get used to
> things like having the SV /sbin/init insead of OFS's.
> (I have several system I maintain which are all somewhat different.b
>
> From: gbell_at_mecx05.colesmyer.com.au (Greg Bell CMIS)
>
> According to Nigel Harwood:
> >
> > * will our support be more difficult both internally and through
> > digital due to the interaction between OSF/1 and the SVR4 environment?
> maybe - it is definitely an added complication to be considered
> >
> > * will layered products sometimes break as they perhaps don't expect
> > SVR4?
> Unlikely - but again a possibility.
> >
> > * will SVR4 always be supported immediately with new releases of OSF/1
> > etc?
> Probably not a concern - SVR4 is too important for it to be neglected.
> >
> > * should root be an SVR4 user, if not what real benefit do we get at
> > the administration level?
> I wouldn't do it, root is too important. The SVR4 compatability is
> unlikely to include the administration tools and an alias/script to
> enable/disable the compatability is probably better.
>
> Digital and the OSF seem to have tried to choose the best of both
> worlds. I really like the vanilla OS that we run (but I am a Dec. bigot).
>
> The BSD compatability in Solaris and SVR4 causes us grief and frustration on
> a regular basis. In general I have found the "compatability features" in
> various operating systems to be a nescessary evil. I never use them
> unless there is a need. The compatability is often a force fit and not 100%.
>
> Of course this is my personal opinion.
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Nigel Harwood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<< Post: Coles Supermarkets, PO Box 480, Glen Iris 3146, Australia >>
<< Phone: +61 3 829 6090 E-mail: nharwood_at_coles.com.au >>
<< FAX: +61 3 829 6886 >>
Received on Thu Feb 02 1995 - 17:18:41 NZDT