larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (02/27/90)
Has anyone else heard anything from SCO about stopping product development on the Xenix product, and only releasing bug fixes through 1991?
david@llustig.uucp (David Schachter) (02/28/90)
At the monthly meeting of the Software Entrepeneur's Forum in Palo Alto,
California, SCO Executive V.P. Doug Michaels said there will be no substantial
enhancements to XENIX. There may be a bug fix release, to incorporate the
various Support Level Supplements that have been issued since the current
release was made. SCO will provide software support for XENIX until the end of
next year.
He allayed some fears about SCO Unix, stating SCO's next release, in June or
July, will be as fast as XENIX in all areas, including serial port handling,
and about 0.5 megabytes bigger in main memory usage ("core", so to speak.)
Mr. Michaels stated that SCO XENIX currently outsells SCO Unix by 2 or 3 to 1.
I have no special "pipeline" into SCO; I'm reporting my recollection of what
Mr. Michaels said in a public forum. He seems like a nice guy.
-- David Schachter
llustig!david@mips.com
...!uunet!mips!llustig!davidcorwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) (02/28/90)
In article <Hy78e2w160w@nstar.UUCP>, larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > Has anyone else heard anything from SCO about stopping > product development on the Xenix product, and only releasing > bug fixes through 1991? No, BUT what has just happened indicates that this might be the case. In november I was told by a tech support rep that there would be an upgrade to the development system "in the first quarter of 90", this upgrade was supposed to have brought the xenix compiler up to the equivalent of the MicroSnot 5.1 compiler. Today I was told there will be no upgrade for the xenix development system, if I want to upgrade I have to go to Unix (and as a result pay through the nose for the upgrade).
corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) (03/01/90)
In article <Hy78e2w160w@nstar.UUCP>, larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > Has anyone else heard anything from SCO about stopping > product development on the Xenix product, and only releasing > bug fixes through 1991? Larry this is really a followup to the message I sent before, I finally got SCO to return a call. According to Sharon in sales, what is currently selling is the final version (aside from MINOR bug fixes) of xenix that will be available. There will be no further development work on xenix, To get up grades you have to pay $495 for operating system and $495 for the development system. At these prices it looks like it is better to buy ESIX from everex than to upgrade to SCO unix. Saves about 175 to go with ESIX, once again the SCO blood suckers strike.
jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) (03/01/90)
In article <1313@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: >No, BUT what has just happened indicates that this might be the case. In >november I was told by a tech support rep that there would be an upgrade >to the development system "in the first quarter of 90", this upgrade was >supposed to have brought the xenix compiler up to the equivalent of the >MicroSnot 5.1 compiler. Today I was told there will be no upgrade for the >xenix development system, if I want to upgrade I have to go to Unix (and >as a result pay through the nose for the upgrade). I hope this is not true -- First no NFS and then no DS upgrade for XENIX. This ties my hands as a developer, and I can't afford to orphan XENIX just like that. I would like to store the source code repository on a central NFS fileserver and compile the code on the host for which it is targeted. Cross compilation is an option, but would be a real pain for device driver work. This will really slow down the edit-compile- link-test cycle. Perhaps I should go on sabbatical, licence, port and distribute a NFS for XENIX; then and spend some time cleaning up the GNU C compiler. --jtc -- J.T. Conklin ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc, jtc@wimsey.bc.ca
corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) (03/01/90)
In article <213@van-bc.UUCP>, jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) writes: > In article <1313@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: > >No, BUT what has just happened indicates that this might be the case. In > >[much deleted] > > I hope this is not true -- First no NFS and then no DS upgrade > for XENIX. This ties my hands as a developer, and I can't afford > to orphan XENIX just like that. > > [why he would like the compiler deleted] As an additional note, latter that same day I talked to tech support where I got my original info on the upgrade, They gave the same story that ther would be no xenix compiler upgrades forth comming. BUT, I received a call back from yet another sales type (I was having trouble getting sco to return my calls, so I put calls in to a bunch of peoplee) who tells me that in a memo dated 2/23/89 it states that there is a an update going to be available in 'late march'. What this all means I don't know, but I suspect that noone is in charge down at sco.
jeff@hobbes.C2S.MN.ORG (Jeff Holmes) (03/03/90)
In article <1314@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: > In article <Hy78e2w160w@nstar.UUCP>, larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > > Has anyone else heard anything from SCO about stopping > > product development on the Xenix product, and only releasing > > bug fixes through 1991? > > Larry this is really a followup to the message I sent before, I finally got > SCO to return a call. According to Sharon in sales, what is currently selling > is the final version (aside from MINOR bug fixes) of xenix that will be > available. There will be no further development work on xenix, To get up > grades you have to pay $495 for operating system and $495 for the development > system. At these prices it looks like it is better to buy ESIX from everex > than to upgrade to SCO unix. Saves about 175 to go with ESIX, once again > the SCO blood suckers strike. > This makes me VERY angry. Just 4 months ago I paid $1500.00 for Xenix 2.3.2. Now to keep current I have to spend another $1000.00 for 3.2. This puts me at a grand total of $2500.00 when (unless I'm mistaken) SCO Unix 3.2 only retails for around $1900.00. Damn!. I looked closely at ESIX, but decided that SCO had a better reputation, and what they offered for the price was a good deal. I will be looking at ESIX once again. -- Jeff Holmes DOMAIN: jeff@questar.mn.org Questar Data Systems UUCP: amdahl!bungia!questar!jeff St. Paul, MN 55121 AT&T: +1 612 688 0089
how@milhow1.UU.NET (Mike Howard) (03/03/90)
In article <1313@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: >In article <Hy78e2w160w@nstar.UUCP>, larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >> Has anyone else heard anything from SCO about stopping ... Xenix development > >MicroSnot 5.1 compiler. Today I was told there will be no upgrade for the ^^^^^^^ >xenix development system, if I want to upgrade I have to go to Unix (and I don't think this is quite correct. As I recall, SCO uses the word `upgrade' when they change the second (or leading) digit of a release number. This would mean that there will be no Xenix Dev Sys 2.4.x ... They seem to use the word `update' when there is a `bug-fix'/minor enhancement fix and they change the third digit of the release number. This argues that there will be a Xenix Dev Sys 2.3.1 or 2.3.2. FYI - lng#085 contains a 386 compiler which is based on the Microsoft 5.? compiler - as well as a few bugs. There is mention of a lng#085b in the bowels of the SCO bulletin board - but it is _not_ being shipped and media does not know about it (as of my last contact) - because of the imminent `update'. I wish that SCO had chosen a less cryptic vocabulary - even at the expense of a few more words. They could have said `bug-fix release' or `minor upgrade' or ... and `major release' or `big and nifty release' or ... Disclaimer: I have no relation with SCO except that I use their products. This info is to the best of my knowledge - which is known to be flawed. -- Mike Howard uunet!milhow1!how or milhow1!how@uunet.uu.net
corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) (03/04/90)
In article <280@milhow1.UU.NET>, how@milhow1.UU.NET (Mike Howard) writes: > In article <1313@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: > >In article <Hy78e2w160w@nstar.UUCP>, larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > >> Has anyone else heard anything from SCO about stopping ... Xenix development > > > >MicroSnot 5.1 compiler. Today I was told there will be no upgrade for the > ^^^^^^^ > >xenix development system, if I want to upgrade I have to go to Unix (and > > They seem to use the word `update' when there is a `bug-fix'/minor enhancement > fix and they change the third digit of the release number. This argues > that there will be a Xenix Dev Sys 2.3.1 or 2.3.2. > > FYI - lng#085 contains a 386 compiler which is based on the Microsoft 5.? > compiler - as well as a few bugs. There is mention of a lng#085b in the > bowels of the SCO bulletin board - but it is _not_ being shipped and > media does not know about it (as of my last contact) - because of the > imminent `update'. Mike, you may be corect in this (see my subsequent posts), I got the lng#085 update but it was so full of half fixes that it caused more problems than it fixed. I did find out there would be a 2.3.1 update available 'late march', but if I understand things correctly this take things from compiler level 4.85 to level 5.1, now if that is not an upgrade I do not know what is. In addition it seems that the tech support desk is unaware of this impending update and not all the sales people are. (especially the snotty ones) We will see, all in all I suspect that the basis for my original message was not in error even if it might have been stated incorrectly, SCO is hanging xenix users out to dry. In addition they are making it so expensive to upgrade from xenix to unix that it looks to be more cost effective to go to some other brand of unix.
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (03/05/90)
In article <5118@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG> jeff@hobbes.QUESTAR.MN.ORG (Jeff Holmes) writes: | This makes me VERY angry. Just 4 months ago I paid $1500.00 | for Xenix 2.3.2. Now to keep current I have to spend another | $1000.00 for 3.2. This puts me at a grand total of $2500.00 | when (unless I'm mistaken) SCO Unix 3.2 only retails for | around $1900.00. Damn!. I looked closely at ESIX, but | decided that SCO had a better reputation, and what they | offered for the price was a good deal. I will be looking | at ESIX once again. Unless you need something in 3.2, like the security features, why update? In my opinion, based on talking to people on and off the net, and at SCO, the 3.2 release at this time does not have the same reliability as Xenix. Since reliability is one thing which comes with product age, you would expect to find Xenix more reliable than V.3.2 from any vendor, and that has been my personal experience. I am looking for a product with X-windows and NFS, deliverable and reliable now. I am looking at ESIX, too. I'm told that the SCO UNIX dev. set will run under ix/386, sure hope it runs under ESIX as well! -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (03/05/90)
From article <5118@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG>, by jeff@hobbes.C2S.MN.ORG (Jeff Holmes): > In article <1314@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: > This makes me VERY angry. Just 4 months ago I paid $1500.00 > for Xenix 2.3.2. Now to keep current I have to spend another > $1000.00 for 3.2. This puts me at a grand total of $2500.00 > when (unless I'm mistaken) SCO Unix 3.2 only retails for > around $1900.00. Damn!. I looked closely at ESIX, but > decided that SCO had a better reputation, and what they > offered for the price was a good deal. I will be looking > at ESIX once again. If you bought SCO Xenix just 4 months ago and you're already thinking of upgrading to SCO UNIX, it's your own fault for not thinking ahead back then and simply buying SCO UNIX. It was shipping then..... Overall, it makes good business sense for SCO to drop Xenix. They won't have the overhead of supporting double the development staff to make a product to compete against their own other product. I can see SCO stopping new development on Xenix but still selling it for a few years. There is a definite market niche out there for a small multiuser system and Xenix is it. (I'm speaking mainly of those who only need a very basic runtime system to support a canned application at an end user) SCO UNIX has to be SCO's main thrust as the various buzzwords of compliance are what is needed for a deeper penetration of business markets. Yes, it sucks that SCO is moving in a direction of orphaning home hackers, but that isn't where the money is for them. j |%|John Lawitzke, Dale Computer Corp., R&D |%|UUCP: uunet!frith!dale1!jhl Work |%| uunet!frith!ipecac!jhl Home Inquiring minds just wondering. |%|Internet: jhl@frith.egr.msu.edu
davef@lakesys.lakesys.com (Dave Fenske) (03/05/90)
I have yet to hear (see) anyone talk about the newest kid on the block....Intel. Intel is now pushing their own version of Unix for the 386 environment, and from what I hear may be the first company out with SVR4 for the 386. I think it is also interesting to note that while SCO's prices are going up, AT&T's licensing fees are going down. DF
corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) (03/06/90)
In article <6734@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: > If you bought SCO Xenix just 4 months ago and you're already thinking of > upgrading to SCO UNIX, it's your own fault for not thinking ahead back > then and simply buying SCO UNIX. It was shipping then..... Firts of all it was far from stable, and second of all he does not need to be thinking of upgradind NOW, just upgrading some time in the future when it makes since to. > > Yes, it sucks that SCO is moving in a direction of orphaning home > hackers, but that isn't where the money is for them. If they beleive this, then they are pretty stupid. You ever hear of products such as cpm and ms-dos?
rpeglar@csinc.UUCP (Rob Peglar) (03/06/90)
In article <6734@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: (bunches of old stuff deleted) > Overall, it makes good business sense for SCO to drop Xenix. They won't > have the overhead of supporting double the development staff to make a > product to compete against their own other product. I can see SCO > stopping new development on Xenix but still selling it for a few years. > There is a definite market niche out there for a small multiuser system > and Xenix is it. (I'm speaking mainly of those who only need a very > basic runtime system to support a canned application at an end user) > > SCO UNIX has to be SCO's main thrust as the various buzzwords of > compliance are what is needed for a deeper penetration of business > markets. > > Yes, it sucks that SCO is moving in a direction of orphaning home > hackers, but that isn't where the money is for them. SCO is being caught in a classic dilemma. Pretend you are Doug M. You've got to deliver an OS (Unix) to the market, ASAP, or be swept aside by the AT&T legions (AT&T itself, ISC, Everex ESIX, Intel, etc.) in quick order; OR continue to market/develop/sell/support Xenix, an old standby which has been around now for close to ten years, but really isn't System V. Think. You can't do both (effectively), you don't have enough resources (time, people, money, the eternal triumvirate). What do you do? The solution being presented the public now is, of course, a "lesser of evils" compromise. As an SCO developer, with close ties into Santa Cruz on a number of fronts, and also having to deal with this type of dilemma personally (as a manager of software R&D), I can find it easy to defend SCO. BUT.......SCO is making, IMHO, a number of key mistakes, on both the Xenix and Unix front. Unix: 1. The product is not of expected quality, as measured by a number of different criteria. In general terms, the criteria are system reliability, esp. w/regard to C2 and its side-effects; overall lateness/failure to deliver as promised/vagueness on the part of SCO Engineering, as viewed through Developer Relations; and general non-robustness of XSight, esp. in a networked environment. 2. The product is over-priced, given the factors in 1) above, to the other Unix offerings on the market today. 3. It appears that SCO Engineering is trading off resources from addressing/fixing the basic guts-level problems generalized in 1) above in favor of ODT. This tradeoff appears to be costing customers, both established and potential, a great deal of time and agony. Some will choose to switch rather than fight. Xenix: 1. The product is not being given the appropriate level of support from the factory given its market penetration and sales level. (Note, SCO Xenix out-sells SCO Unix "2 or 3 to 1", from more than one high- level SCO sales/mktg person. SCO should still devote the lion's share of support resources to Xenix; but they can't, since SCO Unix is still not very robust. Classic problem. 2. There exists a large internal conflict within SCO because of the discrepancy of Xenix sales vs. Unix marketing. Which hat do you wear today? 3. The product has been frozen out of development, which is understandable- but the product is also, by resource constraint, being frozen out of timely upgrades/fixes/SLS's/document updates. Well. Whither SCO? Stay tuned. Rob etc. -- Rob Peglar Control Systems, Inc. 2675 Patton Rd., St. Paul MN 55113 ...uunet!csinc!rpeglar 612-631-7800 The posting above does not necessarily represent the policies of my employer.
frank@rsoft.bc.ca (Frank I. Reiter) (03/06/90)
In article <1731@lakesys.lakesys.com> davef@lakesys.UUCP (Dave Fenske) writes: >Intel is now pushing their own version of Unix for the 386 environment, and >from what I hear may be the first company out with SVR4 for the 386. > >I think it is also interesting to note that while SCO's prices are going up, >AT&T's licensing fees are going down. The big question of course is the magnitude of Intel's commitment to it's unix product. We've learned by experience that going with a big name doesn't guarantee quality or longevity - we started yearsa ago with IBM Xenix 1.? and eventually had to move on to SCO because of the bugs in IBM's product. Despite having a big name behind it IBM Xeniox never was much of a success. What about Intel Unix? Is it on the market? How much does it cost? Where can an interested individual find out more about it? If SCO doesn't soon recognize and respond to it's responsibility to support those people that have been supporting them for years then RSI and its future customers will be computing on another vendor's Unix. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ Frank I. Reiter UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!frank Reiter Software Inc. frank@rsoft.bc.ca, a2@mindlink.UUCP Surrey, British Columbia BBS: Mind Link @ (604)576-1214, login as Guest
terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) (03/06/90)
corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: >In article <6734@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: >> If you bought SCO Xenix just 4 months ago and you're already thinking of >> upgrading to SCO UNIX, it's your own fault for not thinking ahead back >> then and simply buying SCO UNIX. It was shipping then..... > Firts of all it was far from stable, and second of all he does not > need to be thinking of upgradind NOW, just upgrading some time in > the future when it makes since to. >> >> Yes, it sucks that SCO is moving in a direction of orphaning home >> hackers, but that isn't where the money is for them. > If they beleive this, then they are pretty stupid. You ever > hear of products such as cpm and ms-dos? I disagree strongly here. First, I'm not sure that the majority (or even a significant fraction) of MS-DOS licenses are sold to home hackers. Secondly, SCO UNIX is MUCH more complicated than DOS, and is CERTAINLY not targeted at the home market. Microport was the hacker's inexpensive UNIX, and we all know what happened to them. If SCO UNIX was targeted at the home market, things like Open Desktop, Xsight, TCP/IP and NFS would never be available. Products like these make sense in a business/educational/governmental environment, not the home marketplace. -- Terry Hull Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University Work: terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry Play: terry@tah386.manhattan.ks.us, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry
wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) (03/06/90)
In article <67@rsoft.bc.ca> frank@rsoft.UUCP (Frank I. Reiter) writes: > >If SCO doesn't soon recognize and respond to it's responsibility to support >those people that have been supporting them for years then RSI and its future >customers will be computing on another vendor's Unix. Hmmm. Having supported SCO for years, as well, I can only say that I pleased that we don't have to contended with two products. All our clients are willing to update. What's it to them, anyway? They upgrade their dBase, their Lotuses, their Frameworks, their Words, their accounting software and god only knows what else --- Hell they upgrade their TV's, their steroes, their CD's, their cars, their clothes in accordance with fashion, their golf clubs, their skiis, their boats and yachts. I upgrade by ski boots and skiis every year at a cost (Canadian) substabtially more than it costs to upgrade from Xenix to UNIX. Besides, I'm not too upset that Volvo does not support its 1974 Model any longer. I should be, its only got about 625,000 klicks on it. From what I have read on this net over the last few years, I am amazed that now Xenix is going, people are in a snit. All of us who have used and abused Xenix (more the latter than the former) have probably said, wistfully, to our clients, "wait until UNIX appears and then." Xenix has played its role, just as cpm and dos have. Basically, I have had enough of experiencing the bastardization of a System III product that began on the 8086, moved to the 286, and then moved to a 386. We have three SCO systems, in-house, the 286 version, the 386 version with tcp-ip, streams, etc., and the ODT. The sooner I can replace all of them, except the latter, the happier I will be. I've got controlled versions, patches, updates, ad nausia. If I had to contend with both Xenix and UNIX, I would be more of a basket case than I already am. From a business point of view, I think it would be folly on the part of SCO to even pretend that they could support the two products, well. Why waste the bucks maintaining and pumping up a old horse for a short wind sprint? Put it out to pasture, or shoot it, but get it over with. No? It will only be a vague memory as the gripes and groans about the new product become more widespread and vocal. Basically, I think it is a very smart move. Kind of like the 1989 break up of the Communist Bloc. As the Old Regime crumbles, the process of bringing in the new accelerates, rapidly. But, then history lessons are not important, here. Even with the short comings of SCO UNIX, its is a big jump that the market place will gobble up. With the reputation that SCO has established with respect to the ongoing development and maintenance of their products, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the "small business world" will be swung over to either ESIX, Interactive, or Intel. I've inherited clients who are burdened with the uport mess and the early offerings of Bell Tech. If I even suggested that they deal with someone other than SCO I would get my walking papers, quickly. The UNIX game is just warming up, and SCO who is in the drivers seat at the moment, is dumping a potential albatros that could hang them at a later date. I've dealt with SCO for what I consider to be a century, and have had little to complain about except, the current sales rep for our area, whom obviously considers us to be too small to deal with. But, the reps short comings are more than adequately made for with the treatment I get from the rest of the people in sales. So much so, I prefer to deal with them and am not put out by not being able to deal with the rep. Granted, SCO cost large bucks, but then my clients pay me equally large bucks to make sure that they stay stable and on a solid upgrade path. If I told them I felt that SCO was overcharing they would probably look at me as if I had lost it more than I already have. They would also look at me strangely, if I tried to explain to them that it would be better to move to another UNIX because I was upset that SCO dropped Xenix. These are not small systems, I talking about. Even, if these people did consider what I would I would me saying, the first thing that they would ask is whether they would have to retrain their people on a word processor other than Word and on a spreadsheet other than SCO Professional. Any answer to that question would bury me in two seconds, flat. Given that they all know that I would like to bury Word, deeper than SCO seems to be burying Xenix, I would lose some clients, very quickly. -- Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (03/06/90)
In article <1731@lakesys.lakesys.com> davef@lakesys.UUCP (Dave Fenske) writes: | I have yet to hear (see) anyone talk about the newest kid on the block....Intel. As I recall Intel bought Bell Technologies and that's where their UNIX comes from. Not remotely a new kid on the block. | | Intel is now pushing their own version of Unix for the 386 environment, and | from what I hear may be the first company out with SVR4 for the 386. That may well be. SCO told me on the phone that they have no intension of selling V.4, and will wait for V.4.1. I talked to ISC, but they asked my not to quote them on their plans. I have heard that Intel hopes to get V.4 out by April, but I got nothing but transfers when I called. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (03/06/90)
The thing which made me choose Xenix for home and work was
reliability and features. SCO UNIX does not seem to have an advantage
in those areas when compared to vendors who have been selling UNIX for
years. If you need the security features it's the only game in town,
but I have yet to see NFS for Xenix or UNIX, and the "controlled
release X-windows" is slow and doesn't support even the standard higher
VGA resolutions. We were told that we would get an update when it was
ready, and we haven't, so I assume either it isn't shipping or they are
sending copies to new order paying customers first.
The good news is that the SCO UNIX development set will run on ix386
and ESIX just fine, and give cross compilation to DOS and OS/2. The
ESIX X I saw wasn't any faster than SCO, but it was a hell of a lot
cheaper.
If the standard IBM VGA and all of the register compatibles will
support 800x600 (even if IBM doesn't say anything about it) it would be
nice to have it in the X drivers.
I will run Xenix as long as I can get support on those machines which
I personally use and control, but I am evaluating all versions of UNIX
available for business use. After looking at the documentation for all
versions, I still feel that SCO has the best.
--
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc
"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anondavidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (03/06/90)
In article <1353@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: | > Yes, it sucks that SCO is moving in a direction of orphaning home | > hackers, but that isn't where the money is for them. | | If they beleive this, then they are pretty stupid. You ever | hear of products such as cpm and ms-dos? I hope you aren't going to claim that they were a success based on home use. CP/M was widely used in industry and business, because it was that of ISIS (from Intel) and ISIS ran on Intel hardware, making the total package about twice the price of a CP/M system. The home hacker is buying ESIX. There just isn't much else in the price range. And thay are making money (assuming they are) in a number of ways. I'm not at all sure how much they modify the basic AT&T release, I suspect not much except for their system with the RISC CPU stuffed in. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
philip@vogon.cetia.fr (Philip Peake) (03/06/90)
In article <1731@lakesys.lakesys.com> davef@lakesys.UUCP (Dave Fenske) writes: >I have yet to hear (see) anyone talk about the newest kid on the block....Intel. >I think it is also interesting to note that while SCO's prices are going up, >AT&T's licensing fees are going down. True, but you havn't said why ... XENIX was (is) sold under the V7 licence conditions, since it is utlimately based upon V7, with evolution (more or less) tracking that of 'official' AT&T versions. Now, SCO UNIX is based upon SVR3 and has to be sold under the SVR3 licence conditions, and, guess what, those licence conditions (and prices) have changed somewhat since V7 days ! Using the magic word UNIX is the description of the article also requires SVR3 licencing (plus a few other things such as SVVS compliance ...). This is not excusing SCO for increasing prices, just giving a good reason why its happening. Philip
bill@zycor.UUCP (Bill Mahoney) (03/06/90)
In article <6734@cps3xx.UUCP> usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: >From article <5118@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG>, by jeff@hobbes.C2S.MN.ORG (Jeff Holmes): >> In article <1314@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: >> This makes me VERY angry. > >If you bought SCO Xenix just 4 months ago and you're already thinking of >upgrading to SCO UNIX, it's your own fault for not thinking ahead back >then and simply buying SCO UNIX. It was shipping then..... This is a joke, right? If SCO is wanting to push UNIX, and it "makes good business sense" to drop Xenix, they could have handled this MUCH better. >Overall, it makes good business sense for SCO to drop Xenix. They won't >have the overhead of supporting double the development staff to make a >product to compete against their own other product. I agree. So they should offer a $800 (or something) update path for those of us who have pumped $ into them for years. If they want all of their customers to switch over, making a new product that is MORE expensive is hardly the best way (unless you're IBM, and their rules don't apply anywhere but at IBM). >Yes, it sucks that SCO is moving in a direction of orphaning home >hackers, Some of us might resent that... >but that isn't where the money is for them. -- Bill Mahoney //STEPLIB DD DSN=SYS2.LINKLIB,DSP=SHR bill@zycor.UUCP //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=A .... Huh? Wha? Oh! It was only a bad dream!
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/08/90)
In article <1353@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: >In article <6734@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: >> If you bought SCO Xenix just 4 months ago and you're already thinking of >> upgrading to SCO UNIX, it's your own fault for not thinking ahead back >> then and simply buying SCO UNIX. It was shipping then..... > Firts of all it was far from stable, and second of all he does not > need to be thinking of upgradind NOW, just upgrading some time in > the future when it makes since to. An open letter to SCO -- Do you intend to offer a free upgrade to the next release (from Unix 3.2.0) once it's out? Normally I wouldn't expect this, but the stability problems I've seen with the Unix 3.2.0 release are serious enough that I am asking, in the open, on behalf of one of our clients. The problems include but are not limited to: o System instabilities, manifesting as crashes under certain conditions (tape + Vp/ix + communications == trouble) and trouble with tape drivers in general (Archive Viper drives require a "tape reset" between operations?!). These problems are new to SCO Unix 3.2; Xenix on the same hardware doesn't have any of these difficulties. o Serious problems with the rcc compiler, including files in the wrong place, code which won't compile (but does under ISC's compiler), etc. o Inability to recognize some mice properly (including the mouse on the ATI VGA Wonder cards). These mice work properly under both MSDOS and ISC Unix 2.0.2, yet fail under SCO Unix 3.2. o Inability to handle 19200 baud communications without buying an expensive intelligent I/O board. Xenix didn't have this problem. o A "C2" security system which gets in the way and can't be disabled. ("Relax" mode does not disable it entirely). This makes some common administrator operations either dangerous or impossible, and requires that nearly all administration go through the menu system. o Rumors abound that the TCP/IP networking code uses broadcast packets to an undocumented port number in the name of license security (ie: to make sure you don't run one copy of TCP/IP on 2 systems). This is evil and rude if true, especially on large networks. Broadcasts require a response from every device on the net, and in a large network (2000 devices, for example) can bring performance to new lows. License validation at installation is one thing (which SCO does now and we don't object to); active validation at the expense of performance is another and is completely unacceptable. SCO, when is an upgrade going to be available? Will it address all of the above concerns? And will it be no-charge to your current Unix 3.2 customer base? These are very serious questions. The problems I've seen with the 3.2.0 release are rather nasty and difficult to isolate. It's not stable enough for us to sell to commercial clients (who we have to be able to support and expect perfect operational records), and definately not up to the usual SCO level of quality. It doesn't even come close to SCO Xenix's record around here; we have sites which have been up for over a half-year without a shutdown or untoward incident! Then there's the issue of compatibility. The entire idea of having Unix 3.2 is that administration and programming for it are a >standard<. By imposing the C2 security layer, SCO has destroyed compatiblity at the administration level. That is very important to the customer who already has a bunch of System V R3.2 systems in house and doesn't want to learn the system all over again (he shouldn't have to!) I've been a staunch SCO supporter for quite a while, but the Unix 3.2 release has me more than a little upset. We have one customer who has it, and that's going to be it for us until we see some major improvements -- both in the software and the support/bug repair departments. Those improvements are going to have to be demonstrated -- something that SCO may or may not see fit to do for us. We certainly aren't about to make an investment in the package as it is now, Open Desktop or not. One thing to consider -- there are lots of fish in the sea. With Xenix you had a unique and competitive product for business. Now, we can choose from several vendors, all of whom offer essentially the same thing: o ISC 2.0.2 (3.2) o AT&T 3.2 o INTEL 3.2 o ESIX 3.2 o SCO Unix 3.2 You can't just be equivalent -- you have to do it better than the next guy; either better or cheaper, preferrably both. ISC is trying real hard to make sure that you have a tough job in front of you. Their 75% discount on dealer demo copies makes it cheap for us to keep the current versions available for demonstration and in-house use. Their upgrades are inexpensive, far less expensive than yours have ever been. Again, for SCO and anyone else who's listening -- BUG FIXES ARE NOT SUPPORT. Regardless of what your license says, customers have the right to expect that their software is functional and reasonably bug-free. They should not have to pay to get bugs fixed -- functionality enhancements, yes, bug fixes no. If a manufacturer wants to stick to his/her guns on this one, and say "you paid for diskettes, regardless of what was on them" then we will buy and resell someone else's implementation. No further discussion is necessary or fruitful. We're not looking to sue someone over defects; we are looking to get defects resolved in a reasonable timeframe. The customer paid for what was represented as functional and stable software. That's the reasonable man's expectation, and that is what we require. We go to bat for our customers when they have a problem -- we must have a responsive organization behind the products we resell, or we may as well quit this business entirely. Finally, with ISC we can call in and talk to a technician immediately. SCO requires a callback, usually with a 24-48 hour delay. This is increasingly unacceptable. If SCO can't handle the direct support burden, perhaps they should allow only resellers to call the technical people, and have customers go to their dealers for support questions. It might unclog the lines. Alternately, if you're making such a tidy sum on Softcare Services, add more techs! ISC has recently seen the light. We used to flame them regularly, now we resell their product. SCO used to understand these items well. We received excellent service for over two years, that is a matter of record and something we don't deny. We'd like to be able to continue to recommend and sell your operating systems products. The ball is in your court. Sincerely, -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/08/90)
One correction I was not aware of: SCO has been in contact (just in the last couple of days) with the customer of ours that has been having trouble. I'll keep the net (and SCO, of course) posted on the progress that is made on the stability issues as conditions change. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"