There's no mis-interpretation.

If you would care to read, and get an understanding, please try the following link..

http://whacked.net/2005/06/21/confused-so-was-i/

Solaris 11, will continue to be the development cycle, Solaris 10 is (as put by one of the developers) *THE LAST VERSION of SOLARIS EVER*... They may achieve Solaris 10, Update 535 in time, but as of this moment, Solaris 10 is the highest production version we'll see.

So Nevada 5.11 build xxx are all development releases.

Blizzard could turn off every WoW server that they own, and I wouldn't be bothered one iota.

opensolaris - the regular SXCE builds are Sun's testbed for new updates, patches, fixes and technology updates...

It's noted as 5.11 for the version, codenamed Nevada.

It's very similar to the way the unix kernel builds happened at one time (to be honest I haven't looked lately to know if they still do this or not) - in that the even number release is production and the odd numbered release is development...

Unless Oracle intends to kill off Solaris altogether, I don't see them killing OpenSolaris.

There was something of a renaissance in the early 2000s...

They were called Alternators in the US, and their die-cast brethren were called Binaltech.

http://www.transformerland.com/transformers-alternators.html

They are very detailed, look very nice displayed in a sealed case (2 of each of them, one in robot mode (or animal - Ravage), one in vehicle mode.

I have the complete set of Alternators... couldn't afford the full set of Binaltechs...

in that case..

get the "fuck off" my lawn.

Posted earlier AC...

http://www.blast.com/cgi-bin/blast.com/view_services.cgi?request=show_aisle_names&dept_id=1

As I stated earlier - guaranteed file transfers - if it says it's completed, the file is guaranteed to be there and be correct.

Until the coders get total control of the project, from inception to completion, then no, they cannot be held responsible for bugs in the code.
How many companies push to get code out the door with *imperfections* - claiming they'll fix those in the first update?
Too many these days.
I'd say it's the management that controls the release schedules that should sign their names in blood on the bugs still known about (and unknown as testing probably wasn't allowed to complete).

it can also be described as electron bumping...
an electron comes in, bumps the first atom, which hits the next, (repeat as needed), where the final atom releases it's electron.

think of the perpetual motion (not really) toy - with the series of ball bearings suspended on strings. you pull one back, release, when it hits the group, the one on the opposite end swings out.

only if you consider trading in your car for 8k worth of cabin-air filters, or oil-changes/tire rotations...

they aren't offering 8k worth of ibm hardware for sun hardware...

not the same.

While I agree that getting what was advertised and paid for is not related to net neutrality, it sure as hell isn't trying to get free cake.

It's irresponsibility and profiteering on the ISP's part that is now being called into question.

If an ISP claims unlimited (you cannot redefine a word by throwing fine print at it) at a certain bps, then calculate what you can get downloaded in 365 days, divide by 12, plus a sludge factor for the good days when you get a little more than your *level*, and that should be what you can download without paying any more.

The ISPs have gotten used to *THEIR FREE MEAL*, and now it's being taken away. Awww - I'd feel bad for them if they hadn't asked for it. They should have invested that free meal (users who use less than their paid for bandwidth) to keep their capacity above a low-water mark for utilization so that when the damn breaks, they're ready for it.

Instead, they spent it on bonuses, widgets and gidgets unrelated to their business, and now they find themselves under the gun. Again I say, too damned bad. They put themselves in that position with bad business decisions and are now trying to re-write their end user agreements to enforce even more bad business decisions.

We need to band together, form a class action lawsuit against all ISPs and force them to remove any and all fine print when using the words "unlimited", remove any caps, filters, interference from the lines, and stay that way.

The free lunch/ride for the ISPs is over, now it's time they get to pay for the infrastructure to handle the bandwidth they've been selling and not providing for all these years.

They'll be doing themselves a disservice if, because of XPM, they're not taking make sure that all theirs apps are migrated off of Windows altogether.

There... that's how it should have read.

You did read what you posted right???

it's a non commercial site...

it would appear that no dilution is possible without commercial ties.

It's unfortunate, as that leaves Microsoft without a reasonably valid operating system for 99.9% of the windows users of the world. That would be the percentage of XP users who refuse to upgrade to Vista / 7.

The closest thing to an upgrade I've found is hacking Windows 2008 Server to be a workstation.

awww - did my troll crowd follow me in here???

that post was certainly NOT trolling... merely stating results of years of experience, and not once did I bash anything, just said it wasn't as good as... /sigh - the people they let moderate these days...

I've used probably more x86 based UNIX / UNIX like operating systems than many people out here.
Let's face it, there's not a lot of folks who remember turning key switches to load CTIX over CTOS on a Burroughs XE-550. Yes, I know there are some who will remember this, and things even older...

What I'm getting at, is that of all the operating systems I've used, based off of a plethora of chips, motorola, x86, powerpc, pa-risc, alpha, sparc, of them all, Solaris has been the most stable and reliable.

I've seen Linux systems, using kickstart, loaded onto identically configured hardware, end up with different packages loaded, due to some driver quirk that made it not load during one bootup, and work fine on another. I've seen boxes that ran fine, while their identically configured system crapped out repeatedly.

I've taken those same systems, and using a jumpstart server, loaded them with Solaris x86, and ended with identically configured, installed (down to the last package, configuration, etc) systems. All ran stable, fast and reliably.

Try taking your own run at comparing an application written for the A.M.P. stack, and first run it as a LAMP stack, then run it as a SAMP stack. You'll find that the SAMP stack outperforms the LAMP stack, sometimes by almost 100% on the same hardware.

Take a look at the security certifications, the revamped TCP/IP stack able to process millions (possibly billions) of messages per second (depending on the hardware it's configured to run on).

Take a look at the proprietary hardware, including CMT technologies, or the new ROCK processor due out this fall.

For a company that has been so solid in the operating system arena, to also be leading the pack in some of the hardware innovations is simply amazing.

Anyway, as I said, I've used most of the available UNIX/UNIX like operating systems, and find Solaris to be the best of breed for most, if not all, applications. That's my personal 24 years of experience talking, not just empty marketing words...