ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (05/03/90)
In article <2480@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > > > With respect to SCO Xenix 386, to my knowledge 2.3.3 is the LAST version > of 386. Eh ? Can someone from SCO comment on this please? I was under the impression that 2.3.3 is actually OLDER than 2.3.2 being a "branch version" to bugfix support for VPix or some such abomination. Was my impression wrong ? It's a pity SCO are intending to stop supporting Xenix. I do realise that resources are stretched, and all that, and that the market wants a more generic product, but SCO are going to lose a lot of friends if they don't at least continue to make minor upgrades to maintain compatibilty with new basic machines, even if they can't keep supporting new add-on peripherals, etc. In fact, stopping DEVELOPMENT of the Xenix product is in many ways a GOOD THING, because it'll give us a nice stable kernel to work with. You know, for PRODUCTS that have to go through the front door :-) It's a shame that the sxt driver will never be fixed to work properly and include support for select() etc, but I suppose I can live with that. (Yes, sxt's are useful if you have a job control shell, NOT with shl though -- :-) However, stopping support is another thing altogether. If I can't buy a Xenix to work on a then-new ISA-based 386 box in 5 years time (and Yes, I do believe they will exist, look how new XT-type boxes continue to appear even today) I will indeed feel that SCO would have failed the small system user. -- Eunet: Ronald.Khoo@robobar.Co.Uk Phone: +44 1 991 1142 Fax: +44 1 998 8343 Paper: Robobar Ltd. 22 Wadsworth Road, Perivale, Middx., UB6 7JD ENGLAND.
rogerk@sco.COM (Roger Knopf 5502) (05/08/90)
In article <17576@well.sf.ca.us> aldo@well.sf.ca.us (Aldo Castillo) writes: >Hi there netlanders -- I'm sure that this has been previously >posted (standard disclaimer) but: Yes, we made a posting about this a couple of months ago. The essence of SCO's position on Xenix is not that we want it to die (no way) but that because of customer demands we are placing our development effort emphasis on Unix. SCO will continue to sell and support Xenix for as long as customers want it. >1) What will be the last XENIX release date? Which version? 386 is 2.3.2 (2.3.3 if you have VP/ix). 286 is 2.3.2. Although no specific later releases are planned we certainly could if the situation warranted it (like to incorporate bug fixes). >2) When will SCO discontinue support 8-) of XENIX? Whenever customers stop buying it and then some. Don't believe the followup posting that says late next year. I just got through handling a support question for Xenix-86 release 1.4 on the AT&T 6300 - a release that we stopped engineering on nearly 5 years ago. (Note: I don't usually handle support calls but I am one of the few who was around when that release was current). SCO's support will continue as long as any nontrivial number of users require it. Historically, this has proven to be several years after engineering stops. >3) Will anyone else pick up the support? I am sure our resellers will continue to support Xenix. Even so, SCO has no plans to drop support of Xenix, our resellers are the main group to need the support. Perhaps I can get rosso to repost our official statement. Roger Knopf SCO Consulting Services -- "His potential clients were always giving him the business." --Robert Thornton
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (05/09/90)
In article <5387@scorn.sco.COM> rogerk@sco.COM (Roger Knopf 5502) writes: >386 is 2.3.2 (2.3.3 if you have VP/ix). 286 is 2.3.2. Although no >specific later releases are planned we certainly could if the situation >warranted it (like to incorporate bug fixes). My vendor tells me that top release of the '26 is 2.2.3. Is that a type above, or is he wrong. I'd sure like to get the '286 to the same level of the '386s that I have intermixed at one site. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP