chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (04/18/91)
[ Followups to comp.unix.sysv386 ] First, let me say that I've done my share of SCO-flaming in the past. I just want them to hang for the crimes they *have* committed. :-) According to chris@imsdx3.UUCP (Chris Ott): > 1) Symbolic links. C'mon guys, how hard can this be to implement? Reliable source says: Fixed in 3.2v3. > 2) Reasonably long filenames. Reliable source says: Fixed in 3.2v3. > 3) SCO UNIX does not have a real C compiler. Granted. That's why I use gcc. Saves everyone a lot of trouble. While on the subject of the development system, I wish that SCO could at least edit all the header files to ensure that NULL is always defined consistently. (My preferred definition: a plain "0".) > 4) Also, don't try to defend yourself by saying that you're trying to > be "standard" System V. The thing that gets me the most is that > SCO UNIX has all these extensions, when the basic stuff isn't all > there. Agreed. There is no excuse for omitting RFS, for example. > As an example, I was unable to compile GCC on SCO UNIX ... That's easy! Just define CC=rcc (the "real" AT&T C compiler), and it compiles out of the box. Almost. -- Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service: When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm] Chip Salzenberg <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>