Don't bid over $100 for anything. I wanted to sell my Sparc 5 (with new SCSI drive, 8GB paid $350 for it) for $200 a few weeks ago and nobody would touch it. I also have 2 large monitors (21") that I want to unload. It might be different in other parts of the world but here in Silicon Valley the hardware is bloody cheap. We do pay for the housing through the nose though. I would say that Sparc 5 is worth some money but don't go over $200 unless it has good disk drive(s) and video card. IPX, LX, and SLC is too little for anything usefull at this time. Learning Solaris is not bad idea. OS is free these days so you can setup the system for very little money. Good luck, Rafael On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 09:43:33AM +0800, Ian Blackburn wrote: > > Good morning my work has a lot of sun micro systems hard wear for sale for > > bidding I can bid for it but the minimum is $100 per unit is any of this > > worth it for running and setting up a linux machine > > > my work said the following > > NOTE 1: This equipment is designed to run the SOLARIS UNIX OPERATING > > SYSTEM NOT MICROSOFT WINDOWS. As such you will not be able to run the > > typical Microsoft suite of applications, > > NOTE 2: We are advised that the LINUX operating system will run on these > > workstations. > > NOTE 3: Be aware that most units do not have any form of external media > > reading capability, ie floppy disk or CD-ROM. (advises that a SCSI CD-ROM > > can be connected to an external port.) > > NOTE: 4 Sun Microsystems have advised that the may transfer a SOLARIS > > license with each of the units, but they will not support the product in > > any form. > > > > The following list identifies the type equipment available. > > > > Sparc IPX > > Sparc LX > > Sparc SLC > > Sparc 4 > > Sparc 5 > > > > > thanks for your help > ian > iblackburn@gesb.wa.gov.au > > > > > ======================================================== > Standard disclaimer: > Any recipient of this communication acknowledges that: > * the Government Employees Superannuation Board accepts no responsibility > for the contents, nor the validity of this communication; and > * they do not rely on any view given unless it is properly authorised. > ======================================================== Blablabla, nonsense disclaimer...