Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Veritas\-bu\]\s+v6\.0\s+NOM\s+on\s+Solaris\s+10\s+x86\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Veritas\-bu\]\s+v6\.0\s+NOM\s+on\s+Solaris\s+10\s+x86\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [Veritas-bu] v6.0 NOM on Solaris 10 x86 (score: 1): Author: Mark.Donaldson AT cexp DOT com (Mark.Donaldson AT cexp DOT com); Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:59:42 -0700; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_=_NextPart_001_01C64EA3.8FD2C2B1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's not on the supported l; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2006-03/msg00516.html (15,204 bytes)
2. [Veritas-bu] v6.0 NOM on Solaris 10 x86 (score: 1): Author: pcd AT xinupro DOT com (Peter DrakeUnderkoffler); Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:30:05 -0500; Doesn't seem quite possible, two different architectures and no emulation that I know of....Sun said it was Binary compatible? Thanks Peter Peter DrakeUnderkoffler Xinupro, LLC 617-834-2352 --BEGIN P; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2006-03/msg00518.html (12,984 bytes)
3. [Veritas-bu] v6.0 NOM on Solaris 10 x86 (score: 1): Author: ddunham AT taos DOT com (Darren Dunham); Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:39:02 -0800 (PST); Where does it say that they're binary compatible? No version of Solaris x86 offers SPARC binary compatibility. Both are binary compatible with older releases on the same architecture, but not with e; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2006-03/msg00520.html (11,715 bytes)
4. [Veritas-bu] v6.0 NOM on Solaris 10 x86 (score: 1): Author: Mark.Donaldson AT cexp DOT com (Mark.Donaldson AT cexp DOT com); Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:15:49 -0700; Compatibility is the word from the bossman - no independant verification on my part. Maybe I better... --Original Message-- From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu [mailto:veritas-bu-adm; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2006-03/msg00527.html (12,481 bytes)
5. [Veritas-bu] v6.0 NOM on Solaris 10 x86 (score: 1): Author: ewilts AT ewilts DOT org (Ed Wilts); Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:16:34 -0600; NOM on Linux is on the road map. You should contact Veritas and see where they're at in the development process. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:ewilts AT ewilts DOT org; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2006-03/msg00528.html (11,613 bytes)
6. [Veritas-bu] v6.0 NOM on Solaris 10 x86 (score: 1): Author: ddunham AT taos DOT com (Darren Dunham); Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:29:18 -0800 (PST); Start simple. Try copying over /bin/touch or something from a SPARC machine and see how well it works. i86pc ./touch: ELF 32-bit MSB executable SPARC Version 1, dynamically linked, stripped 11073: e; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2006-03/msg00530.html (12,313 bytes)
7. [Veritas-bu] v6.0 NOM on Solaris 10 x86 (score: 1): Author: Mark.Donaldson AT cexp DOT com (Mark.Donaldson AT cexp DOT com); Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:37:58 -0700; OK - here's the scoop - and the boss was wrong. Solaris x86 & Sparc are "Source compatible" not "binary compatible". Here's an InfoWorld verification: == When it comes to app compatibility, Solaris i; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2006-03/msg00533.html (12,906 bytes)
8. [Veritas-bu] v6.0 NOM on Solaris 10 x86 (score: 1): Author: pcd AT xinupro DOT com (Peter DrakeUnderkoffler); Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:07:08 -0500; The opposite would substantially cut into hardware sales at Sun....all business all the time. Peter DrakeUnderkoffler Xinupro, LLC 617-834-2352 --BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD); /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2006-03/msg00537.html (13,134 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]