evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (09/14/88)
In article <857@viscous>, rosso@sco.COM (Ross Oliver) writes: > SCO is definitely committed to continue development on the multi-user versions > of SCO FoxBASE+. The SCO XENIX 386 version of SCO FoxBASE+ Release 1.0.4 > started shipping last week. We also have ports available for NCR Tower, > IBM RT, and ARIX/Unisys 5000. We will port SCO FoxBASE+ to Sun 3 and AT&T > 3B by year end. Someone from Fox Software told me by phone that SCO was in charge of determining priorities of all FoxBase Unix ports. If this is true, then SCO has shafted Fox Software out of much potential licensing revenue, in order to protect Xenix market share. In my eyes, SCO's development of Integra and its interest in promoting its Unix over others, while certainly free enterprise, are definitely in conflict with the interests of Fox Software (and FoxBase users, now and potential). Are there really more IBM RTs out there than the sum total of all pure System V 286 and 386 systems? Is the demand for the 3B systems growing faster than Interactive, Microport, and Bell Technologies? Likely not, but then SCO isn't peddling an OS for the RT or 3B. If Tim's schedule is true, then there is not even a port being developed in time for the Xenix/Unix merged 386 product. In the short term, the losers are Fox Software, and of course anyone who wants to use a dBASE clone on Microport, Interactive, etc. In the long term, the entire Unix industry (including SCO) suffers, as "experts" cite the lack of consistent software as one of the reasons Unix will never make it against OS/2. Quite the self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps someone at SCO should consider the possibility of a slightly smaller share of a much bigger pie. Short term greed often results in long term loss. > Tim Shelton > SCO Product Marketing -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.UUCP (PENDING: evan@telly.on.ca) / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan Don't worry - Be happy.
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (09/15/88)
In article <334@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
]Someone from Fox Software told me by phone that SCO was in charge of
]determining priorities of all FoxBase Unix ports. If this is true, then
]SCO has shafted Fox Software out of much potential licensing revenue, in
]order to protect Xenix market share.
]...
]If Tim's schedule is true, then there is not even a port being developed
]in time for the Xenix/Unix merged 386 product.
]In the short term, the losers are Fox Software, and of course anyone who
]wants to use a dBASE clone on Microport, Interactive, etc.
Yap, yap, yap...Jeezuz, give me a break. The whole point of the Xenix/UNIX
merged 386 product is that there won't have to be individual ports to both
flavors of 386 UNIX. The current copy of Xenix FoxBase should run fine under
the merged port.
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.harvard.edu
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyerfred@cdin-1.uucp (Fred Rump) (09/16/88)
In article <334@telly.UUCP>, evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: < In article <857@viscous>, rosso@sco.COM (Ross Oliver) writes: < < SCO is definitely committed to continue development on the multi-user versions < < of SCO FoxBASE+. The SCO XENIX 386 version of SCO FoxBASE+ Release 1.0.4 < < started shipping last week. We also have ports available for NCR Tower, < < IBM RT, and ARIX/Unisys 5000. We will port SCO FoxBASE+ to Sun 3 and AT&T < < 3B by year end. < < Someone from Fox Software told me by phone that SCO was in charge of < determining priorities of all FoxBase Unix ports. If this is true, then < Don't worry - Be happy. Evan writes that SCO should be happy with a small slice of a bigger pie. He hints that there are more straight 286/386 systems out there running Unix V than 3B, RT's etc. - that SCO is restricting FOX sales by limiting the product to Xenix. While I would push SCO to the limit to keep Fox up-to-date with its DOS cousin, I can not see why they would or should bother with some of the other vendor's Unixes. We do live in a capitalist society. The idea here is to make money. Somebody had to invest resources to make Fox work under Xenix. If the market were to indicate that Microport users would purchase Fox enmasse, 'somebody' would certainly offer the product. There is a slight problem here though. The 386 port costs $995. How many do you think could be sold at that price in that market? When Xenix goes away next year, when all SCO products will run on any 286/386 product with a current Unix, then Fox too will be available to this large pie we're talking about. But the rewards will go those that took the chance to even offer it in the first place. I say more power to them for they have made the market we can live from. But let's all push SCO to not lose sight of what our DOS users already have and we still hope for: end-user tools. It made DOS and is now expected by all. While VP/ix is nice, it is still slow compared to what 32 bit code can do on a real computer. And I'd rather have it all in native mode. Fred Rump CDI -- Fred Rump, Pres. | UUCP: {rutgers,cbmvax,bellcore}!bpa!cdin-1!fred CompuData, Inc. | or ...{allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs} 10501 Drummond Rd. | !ki4pv!cdis-1!cdin-1!fred Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| or ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!cdis-1!cdin-1!fred
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (09/19/88)
In article <1864@spdcc.COM>, dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: > In article <334@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: > ]SCO has shafted Fox Software out of much potential licensing revenue, in > ]order to protect Xenix market share. > ]... > ]If Tim's schedule is true, then there is not even a port being developed > ]in time for the Xenix/Unix merged 386 product. > > Yap, yap, yap...Jeezuz, give me a break. The whole point of the Xenix/UNIX > merged 386 product is that there won't have to be individual ports to both > flavors of 386 UNIX. The current copy of Xenix FoxBase should run fine under ^^^^^^ > the merged port. Talk about yap. This is the kind of stuff I get from salesmen. You don't have a clue whether or not the merged product will run Xenix binaries any better than early VP/ix ran DOS binaries. Right now the merged product is still Class A vaporware. And every day we wait for it is another day Fox Software loses out. Besides, even when the merged product comes out, what'll that do for anyone who wants FoxBase and System V.2 on a 286 system? SCO has ensured they'll forever be SOL. > Steve Dyer -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.UUCP (PENDING: evan@telly.on.ca) / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan Don't worry - Be happy.
dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) (09/20/88)
In article <334@telly.UUCP>, evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: ... [ discusses FoxBASE porting schedule] ... > > If Tim's schedule is true, then there is not even a port being developed > in time for the Xenix/Unix merged 386 product. > The merged product, Release 3.2, should run FoxBASE without any changes to the existing binary. If it doesn't, then Release 3.2 should be fixed, not FoxBASE. I believe (caveat emptor until final release!) that 3.2 has already been tested with FoxBASE. - Dimitri Rotow
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (09/21/88)
In article <351@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >> Yap, yap, yap...Jeezuz, give me a break. The whole point of the Xenix/UNIX >> merged 386 product is that there won't have to be individual ports to both >> flavors of 386 UNIX. The current copy of Xenix FoxBase should run fine under >> the merged port. > >Talk about yap. This is the kind of stuff I get from salesmen. You don't have >a clue whether or not the merged product will run Xenix binaries any better than >early VP/ix ran DOS binaries. > >Right now the merged product is still Class A vaporware. And every day we wait >for it is another day Fox Software loses out. Yeah. I guess the only alternative is to kvetch and bitch incoherently. If it feels good, do it, but spare us. There's actually a big difference between the merged port running both V.3 and XENIX binaries and VP/ix supporting just about every kind of DOS program, and that is in the nature of the environment that is expected and supported. VP/ix has to completely emulate a generic IBM PC environment (not just DOS--in fact, it will run programs which do not use DOS) and it's remarkable that it does as well as it does. Both XENIX and V.3 programs are considerably "better behaved", if not "well behaved", simply because what a program can do under both operating systems is greatly constrained by the system call interface. So, developers of the merged port have a small leg up -- there's less that can go wrong although it still isn't trivial. The merged port is not "Class A vaporware". As others have mentioned, the first releases of the port have gone to the resellers like SCO and Microport and ISC for their own integration. What's more, the technology is already in place and being distributed. XENIX 386 2.3 provides the ability to execute V.3 binaries under a XENIX environment. In any event, since the merged port was driven by Microsoft, I would imagine that binary compatibility with existing applications would be an absolute requirement. This has certainly been their track record over the past years. And, since SCO distributes the Foxbase products, any flaws in the port relative to executing XENIX binaries will be fixed expeditiously, since they cannot be in a position of distributing something which causes their applications base to break. So, in a sense, the Foxbase products are in a *better position* to be ensured of running than some company's random 386 binary. Yeah, you might hear this from an unusually intelligent salesman. Big deal. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer