lele@idea.sublink.org (Lele Gaifax as idea's SysAdm) (04/10/91)
I was thinking about the great difference in the approaches to the
customers that Interactive and SCO have.
It seems to me that, as far as I can read and hear here in Italy, SCO
is much more "dynamic": in my everyday readings I see that SCO
subscribed agreements with "Pinco, Inc", "Pallino, Ltd", "Caio, Intl"
and so on, several of those touching advanced tech like Risc, like the
"Gibraltar Project" (I don't know if it is called the same in the US...),
a group of firms which purpose is the development of an alternative
source of Risc-based systems...
At least here in Italy, when you speak with someone about Unix related
subjects, the usual approach is "Hmm... do you mean SCO
{Unix,Xenix}??". The reason is that apparently SCO is identified as
*the* source of this os, instead of "just one"...
Why? Is it the same there in the US? Do not they recognise how hard it
is to sell something so "unknown"? Or maybe they *do* this kind of
cross-agreements and simply they do not let us know it?
Just wondering....
ciao, lele.
--
<<< lele gaifas-the 1st sublinker in TN | lele@idea.sublink.org >>>
Se ti vien voglia di lavorare, siediti: vedrai che ti passa...