[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Solaris 2.6 not y2k ready (?)
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Mark R. Lindsey wrote:
> It was a while back (>6 months) in some of Sun's printed literature,
> I believe. Solaris is such a small part of our operation that I haven't
> pursued it further, but it's nice to know that they're willing to speak
> for versions <2.6.
There were newer patches for 2.51 and SunOS 4.1.4 when I went at it at the
beginning of Dec. Don't know how they held out as I took another position
since then, but they haven't been calling to yell at me for the Suns going
down ;-).
The original patching we did for 4.1.4 was interesting. I'd never worked with
it and we decided to bring in a Sun consultant to make sure everything turned
out right as we had no test machines or backup box for this particular
function. He hadn't worked with SunOS for years and had to call their internal
tech support line several times, but it all went in just fine.
ciao,
der.hans
> Forrest Houston said:
> : Out of curiosity where did you read that?
> :
> : According to: http://www.sun.com/y2000/enhancements.html
> :
> : "Solaris operating environments (7, 2.6, 2.5.1, 2.5, 2.4, and 2.3) are
> : Year 2000 compliant with free modifications available via a download from
> : SunSolve Online."
> :
> : Unfortunately I'm not running 2.6 on anything right now, so I can't tell
> : you if it's giving me any problems or not ;)
> :
> : Forrest Houston
> : USC/ISI East
> :
> : On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Mark R. Lindsey wrote:
> :
> : > I've read that Sun isn't willing to claim that Solaris 2.6 is free of
> : > year-2000-related defects. Has anyone seen anything about 2.6 that would
> : > lead them to think that it does have such a problem?
> : >
> : >
> : >
>
>
>
>
>
# +++++++++++=================================+++++++++++ #
# LuftHans@asu.edu #
# http://home.pages.de/~lufthans/ #
# Magic is science unexplained. - der.hans #
# ===========+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=========== #