frankb@usource.UUCP (Frank Bicknell) (05/22/89)
This might belong in some .newsgroups group, but this is the
only group I have access to, so...
What's to become of this newsgroup when SCO xenix becomes SCO
unix? I realize that it's strictly a formality, but it seems
that most of the traffic here is SCO-xenix based.
Should it stick around until the xenix versions trickle off?
Where should new SCO unix traffic go? Over to
comp.unix.{questions|wizards|et.al.}?
--
Frank Bicknell; 1405 Main St, Ste 709; Sarasota, FL 34236-5701
killer!usource!frankbfr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (05/23/89)
I thought we had voted to create comp.unix.i386 or something very similar.
Didn't we?
Fred Rump
--
This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news.
26 Warren St. ...{dsinc bpa uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010 or INTERNET: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@icdi10.uu.net
609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - SchillerDion_L_Johnson@cup.portal.com (05/23/89)
Frank Bicknell writes: >What's to become of this newsgroup when SCO xenix becomes SCO >unix? I realize that it's strictly a formality, but it seems >that most of the traffic here is SCO-xenix based. It's not just a formality. SCO UNIX is not just another version of XENIX - it's a major change, on a new porting base. XENIX will be around for a while (especially for 286 machines) and it may be sensible to create a new newsgroup for the new product. comp.unix.sco-unix ? Dion L. Johnson
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/24/89)
In article <18698@cup.portal.com>, Dion_L_Johnson@cup.portal.com writes: > It's not just a formality. SCO UNIX is not just another version > of XENIX - it's a major change, on a new porting base. Yes, it's on the standard System V/386 base. > XENIX will be around for a while (especially for 286 machines) > and it may be sensible to create a new newsgroup for the > new product. comp.unix.sco-unix ? How about joining the other 80386 UNIX people in comp.unix.i386? You've got more in common with the other System V/386 (and even the odd BSD/386) people than the Xenix/286 folks. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) (05/24/89)
In article <184@usource.UUCP>, frankb@usource.UUCP (Frank Bicknell) writes: > What's to become of this newsgroup when SCO xenix becomes SCO unix? Hopefully all the SCO Unix 386 traffic will take place in comp.unix.i386, since the similarities should be greater than the differences.... :-) Seriously, the main reason that people didn't want to just replace comp.unix.xenix with comp.unix.i386 was to support all the non-386 Xenix versions that will persist even when the merged release becomes reality. (There was also considerable skepticism that the merged release would show up before 1990....) -- John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net
edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) (05/28/89)
In article <18698@cup.portal.com> Dion_L_Johnson@cup.portal.com writes: >Frank Bicknell writes: >>What's to become of this newsgroup when SCO xenix becomes SCO >>unix? I realize that it's strictly a formality, but it seems >>that most of the traffic here is SCO-xenix based. > >It's not just a formality. SCO UNIX is not just another version >of XENIX - it's a major change, on a new porting base. >XENIX will be around for a while (especially for 286 machines) It's quite likely that SCO Xenix will be around (286/386) for quite a while. SCO Xenix is an optimized product that runs very well and very *fast* (comparatively speaking) on intel architecture and is ideal for sites with limited resources. I don't see this changing in the short term. On the other hand, SCO UNIX appears to be directed towards sites which require AT&T based UNIX, full binary portability, C2 level audit security, and lots more (my binders are overflowing!). That being the case it's somewhat larger than Xenix and consumes resources accordingly. Simply put: you get a lot, but you need more resources to support it to the same performance level, especially if you're running audit. Considering how much more is in it, it's amazing that it runs comparative to Xenix speed at all. Good job, SCO! We have two very good products here, but they're directed towards different markets ("authorized comments" are welcome). >and it may be sensible to create a new newsgroup for the >new product. comp.unix.sco-unix ? That may prove to be a most valid suggestion, come release-date. --ed {edhew@egvideo.uucp} >Dion L. Johnson Ed. A. Hew Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew home: edhew@egvideo.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!egvideo!edhew # I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on floppy around here somewhere!
fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (05/30/89)
In article <2022@egvideo.UUCP> edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes: >In article <18698@cup.portal.com> Dion_L_Johnson@cup.portal.com writes: >>>What's to become of this newsgroup when SCO xenix becomes SCO >>>unix? >>XENIX will be around for a while (especially for 286 machines) > >It's quite likely that SCO Xenix will be around (286/386) for quite a >while. >On the other hand, SCO UNIX appears to be directed towards sites which >require AT&T based UNIX, full binary portability, C2 level audit security, >We have two very good products here, but they're directed towards different >markets ("authorized comments" are welcome). This does not check with the facts as I know them. My assumption is that the 286 Xenix version will stay but that on the 386 side it will simply go away and turn into SCO UNIX 386. Am I wrong? I don't think SCO will support two 386 Unixes. I wouldn't. Fred Rump -- This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 26 Warren St. ...{dsinc bpa uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr Beverly, NJ 08010 or INTERNET: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@icdi10.uu.net 609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schiller
mhlevy@sbee.sunysb.edu (Mark Levy) (05/31/89)
In article <2022@egvideo.UUCP>, edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes:
#
# It's quite likely that SCO Xenix will be around (286/386) for quite a
# while. SCO Xenix is an optimized product that runs very well and very
# *fast* (comparatively speaking) on intel architecture and is ideal for
# sites with limited resources. I don't see this changing in the short term.
#
#
# We have two very good products here, but they're directed towards different
# markets ("authorized comments" are welcome).
#
#
# --ed {edhew@egvideo.uucp}
#
I've heard conflicting reports regarding the soon to be released ;-) X
package from SCO, X_SIGHT. Does anybody know _FOR_SURE_ if it will run
on SCO XENIX? I've heard 2 different stories from SCO sales.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~ Disclaimer??? We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!!! ~~~~~~
Mark Levy { mhlevy@sbccvm.BITNET } % Debbie Gibson is pregnant, with
{ mhlevy@sbee.sunysb.edu } % my two headed love child....
{ mhlevy@ccvm.sunysb.edu } % Mojo Nixonterry@tah386.UUCP (Terry Hull) (06/01/89)
In article <1185@sbee.sunysb.edu> mhlevy@sbee.sunysb.edu (Mark Levy) writes: > >I've heard conflicting reports regarding the soon to be released ;-) X >package from SCO, X_SIGHT. Does anybody know _FOR_SURE_ if it will run >on SCO XENIX? I've heard 2 different stories from SCO sales. I was told by Scott at Computer Software House Distributing (SCO Distributors) that X-Sight will NOT run under XENIX. Scott said the current delay in shipping X-Sight was waiting for delivery of an OS that would support it (SCO UNIX 3.2). -- Terry Hull Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University Work: terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry Play: rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry
edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) (06/08/89)
In article <193@icdi10.UUCP> fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes: >This does not check with the facts as I know them. >My assumption is that the 286 Xenix version will stay but that on the 386 >side it will simply go away and turn into SCO UNIX 386. > >Am I wrong? I don't think SCO will support two 386 Unixes. I wouldn't. > >Fred Rump I had written: EH>On the other hand, SCO UNIX appears to be directed towards sites which EH>require AT&T based UNIX, full binary portability, C2 level audit security, EH>We have two very good products here, but they're directed towards different EH>markets ("authorized comments" are welcome). > >This does not check with the facts as I know them. It's still my understanding that SCO will continue to support Xenix for an indefinite time. I have requested "official" (well, from SCO marketing) clarification of this, and will post accordingly when they advise. --ed {edhew@egvideo.uucp}
stacy@mcl.UUCP (Stacy L. Millions) (06/08/89)
In article <193@icdi10.UUCP>, fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes: > In article <2022@egvideo.UUCP> edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes: > >It's quite likely that SCO Xenix will be around (286/386) for quite a > >while. > >On the other hand, SCO UNIX appears to be directed towards sites which > >require AT&T based UNIX, full binary portability, C2 level audit security, > >We have two very good products here, but they're directed towards different > >markets ("authorized comments" are welcome). > > This does not check with the facts as I know them. > My assumption is that the 286 Xenix version will stay but that on the 386 > side it will simply go away and turn into SCO UNIX 386. > > Am I wrong? I don't think SCO will support two 386 Unixes. I wouldn't. I have a paper here from SCO entitled SCO UNIX System V/386 Release 3.2 An SCO Background Paper September 1988 It finishes off with an Answers to common questions section from which I quote: Q: Will SCO continue to sell and support SCO XENIX System V Release 2.3 for 286 and 386 machines after the introduction of SCO UNIX System V/386 Release 3.2? A: Yes. Many customers will prefer the lower memory and disk requirements of SCO XENIX System V Release 2.3. Additionally, Release 3.2 will not be available for 286 machines. -stacy -- "Fuzzy Wuzzy was a women?" - Gene Wilder _See No Evil Hear No Evil_ S. L. Millions Millions Computing Ltd. tmsoft!mcl!stacy
edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) (06/16/89)
In article <193@icdi10.UUCP> fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes: >>In article <2022@egvideo.UUCP> edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes: >> >>It's likely that SCO Xenix will be around (286/386) for quite a while. >>On the other hand, SCO UNIX appears to be directed towards sites which >>require AT&T based UNIX, full binary portability, C2 level audit security, >>We have two very good products here, but they're directed towards different >>markets ("authorized comments" are welcome). --ed > >This does not check with the facts as I know them. >My assumption is that the 286 Xenix version will stay but that on the 386 >side it will simply go away and turn into SCO UNIX 386. > >Am I wrong? I don't think SCO will support two 386 Unixes. I wouldn't. > >Fred Rump I have requested and received the "facts" from a qualified source at SCO. The following is reprinted with the permission of the author: } >From lsuc!attcan!uunet!sco!msiffin Thu Jun 15 09:27:35 1989 } Received: by xenicon.uucp (smail2.5) } id AA01508; 15 Jun 89 09:27:35 EDT (Thu) } Received: from sco.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP } id AA26398; Thu, 15 Jun 89 02:15:24 -0400 } From: uunet!sco!msiffin } Message-Id: <8906150615.AA26398@uunet.uu.net> } To: lsuc!xenicon!edhew } Subject: Xenix vs. UNIX } Date: Wed Jun 14 08:00:46 1989 } Status: ORr } } Ed, } } Let me put and end to the debate as to SCO's position in regards } to Xenix's future in conjunction with the upcoming SCO UNIX product. } SCO has always been known as backward compatible as well as forward compatible. } Therefore, our position with Xenix is that we will continue to sell and } support 8086 Xenix, 286 Xenix and 386 Xenix. The last actual version of } SCO Xenix will be 2.3.2 Xenix on both the 286 and 386 platforms respectively. } } >From a company standpoint, as well as a marketing standpoint it makes sense } to continue selling what made you a success to begin with and continues to } make you a success. Xenix is a strong word that is definitely associated } with SCO, therefore why discontinue it's impact. Anyway, the bottom line is } that SCO is providing a UNIX product for many reasons, one of the main ones } being that we can now offer (thanks to the cooperation of at&t and microsoft) } a full fledged binary compatible UNIX product that many peoples desire. } } } Michael Siffin } Account Manager } SCO } Hopefully the above will be sufficiently definitive material to allow all interested to form their own opinions as to the future of both Xenix and UNIX. I've already stated mine. --ed {edhew@egvideo.uucp} Ed. A. Hew Authorized SCO Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew home: edhew@egvideo.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!egvideo!edhew # I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on floppy around here somewhere!
rfox@pnet12.cts.com (Richard Fox) (07/23/89)
So Mike, Is there a SCO version of unix that is very inexpensive (for students) to use on a xt/at system. I would like to use Xenix (unix) for learning but cannot afford a large outlay of cash, does SCO have any stripped down packages for this application? UUCP: uunet!serene!pnet12!rfox ARPA: crash!pnet12!rfox@nosc.mil INET: rfox@pnet12.cts.com