ldstern@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Larry Stern) (03/18/91)
Could anyone briefly outline for me the differences between SCO's Unix and
Xenix? I am looking for a Unix system to run on my AT clone.
Thank you in advance.
Larry Stern
LDSTERN@RODAN.ACS.SYR.EDUtkevans@fallst.UUCP (Tim Evans) (03/22/91)
In article <533@bria>: >In an article, rodan.acs.syr.edu!ldstern (Larry Stern) writes: >>Could anyone briefly outline for me the differences between SCO's Unix and >>Xenix? I am looking for a Unix system to run on my AT clone. >>Thank you in advance. >#define SCO_XENIX EXPENSIVE >#define SCO_UNIX OUTRAGEOUSLY_EXPENSIVE While this response is cute, it doesn't give the poster any information. Most importantly, though, since the poster says he wants "a Unix system to run on my *AT* clone" (emphasis added), and assuming that by "AT clone" he means an 80286 machine, there is no SCO UNIX for '286 boxes--only Xenix. However, SCO is not the only choice for the '286. Microport still sells System V/AT, at substantially lower cost. -- UUCP: {rutgers|ames|uunet}!mimsy!woodb!fallst!tkevans INTERNET: tkevans%fallst@wb3ffv.ampr.org Tim Evans 2201 Brookhaven Ct, Fallston, MD 21047
wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) (03/23/91)
In article <533@bria> uunet!bria!mike writes: >In an article, rodan.acs.syr.edu!ldstern (Larry Stern) writes: >>Could anyone briefly outline for me the differences between SCO's Unix and >>Xenix? I am looking for a Unix system to run on my AT clone. >>Thank you in advance. >#define SCO_XENIX EXPENSIVE >#define SCO_UNIX OUTRAGEOUSLY_EXPENSIVE #define SCO_XENIX SMALL | (STABLE * 10) | RICH_SUBSETS_OF_MANY_UNIXES #define SCO_UNIX BIGGER | STABLE * 2 | RICH_SUBSETS_OF_MANY_UNIXES You oftern get exactly what you pay for. SCO outshines all the others in system administration functions (installation, backups, user administration). And their support is great, not perfect (people are involved). It is expensive (People cost money: they too want to buy their kids the GI Joe with the kung fu grip for Christmas). Their UUCP-accessible software supplements are simply marvelous! It's functionality set has been mimiced by many other vendors (XENIX compatibility under UNIX, termcap under Sys V, etc. I am not good enough a historian to be sure of the extent of this, so flasme suit on). XENIX is the most compact and robust UNIX-like OS on the face of the earth. UNIX, especially ODT, is a *very* cost effective trip into 3.2 (and X). SCO supports a *wide* variety of peripherals. You will not always get the 'latest and greatest' from SCO. They do a very good job of the tedious QA necessary to bring 'universityware' (as one noble fellow put it with not a flame in his heart) to market. SCO hat off, {20 year engineering,30 year hacking} hat on: Hey, 8 years ago, people paid enormous amounts of money for UNIX. C compilers for some systems (all the minis) cost as much as my house! *All* of the -86 UNIX/XENIX vendors have done a great job of ^^^^^ reducing the complexity of admnistration, reducing cost, enhancing peripheral support and, in short, approaching the "UNIX functionality for DOS price" goal. Each and every vendor has something better about it than another. But changeable source code is a long way from a finished, supportable product and there are tradeoffs to be made when chosing between *products*. I wish my Toshiba VCR had some of the features of the Mitsubishi I returned, but certain special effects on the Toshiba were more important to my video hacking than an automatic PAUSE on the screen during record pause. That's life. UNIX may be a long way away from DOS prices, but ya usually don't get what ya don't pay pay for. And UNIX is still priced above some people's heads. Beer is too expensive for some people, too. That, alas, too is life. Flame me, but you know it's so. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Tucker, TuckerWare, Mountain Park, GA wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US "The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows." -- Frank Zappa
rickc@telly.on.ca (Rick Copley) (03/26/91)
ESIX is another "unix" to try, I understand that it is "less" expensive than
SCO stuff.
--
#include <sys/types.h> /* Rick Copley - rickc@telly.on.ca */
main() /* PROGRESS Programmer/Systems Analyst */
{
typedef long lotsa; /* Time spent hackin isn't wasted */
lotsa *fun; /* unix - Live Free or DIE ! */
time_t in;
fun = (lotsa)hack(in); /* following the hacker ethic */
}vancleef@iastate.edu (Van Cleef Henry H) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar17.180605.25133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> ldstern@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Larry Stern) writes: >Could anyone briefly outline for me the differences between SCO's Unix and >Xenix? I am looking for a Unix system to run on my AT clone. >Thank you in advance. > I note that you are from Syracuse University and may want a Unix system as a learning platform rather than a commercial system with all the bells and whistles. May I suggest Minix, available from Prentice-Hall for $169. It is a "clone" of system 7 (late 1970's) that comes with source code. It is NOT a "public domain" system, and therefore not available by FTP. It is a very neatly done package, and comes with a comprehensive book. It is also capable of serious things---I am writing this response from a laptop with 2 720K floppies only using the Kermit supplied with the package. You can ftp a demo disk from plains.nodak.edu (internet) and has a newsgroup comp.os.minix. Supported by all sorts of add-ons available through ftp and a very good teaching/learning package. Those who yelp about SCO prices ought to consider the number of extensions that the SCO packages provide. However, I would suggest that SCO 386 products be used, which does not support an "AT Clone"--presumably 286. SCO Xenix 386 and SCO System V are completely different products. The latter, as I recall, requires about 58 meg for the OS, development system, and man pages. SCO provides a very comprehensive doc set. I have, in past years, evaluated the Interactive, AT+T, and Intel Sys V products but have stuck with SCO as a development platform because it provides more toys and goodies and has less bugs, at least in the versions I have used. --