lws@comm.WANG.COM (Lyle Seaman) (03/01/90)
dacseg@uts.amdahl.com (Scott E. Garfinkle) writes: >From article <129@n4hgf.uucp>, by wht@n4hgf.uucp (Warren Tucker): >> SCO is _much_ easier to configure and administer. >> The C2 Trusted Computer features are for neurotics, paranoids, >> left-brains, or worse yet government control freaks. Not recommended >> for sane human beings. >I agree with the latter statement, though it somewhat contradicts the former >statement -- there is *no* way to remove completely the secureware (C2/B1) >stuff from SCO Unix. Also, having installed/administerd both SCO Unix and >ESIX, I wouldn't necessarily say that SCO is a *lot* better. I too agree. The single largest problem I have with administering SCO's UNIX is that cockeyed C2 stuff. Occasionally it becomes necessary to go in and manually hack on their database. Fortunately, they didn't make it _so_ complicated that I can't figure it out. Of course, given that the folks at SCO don't much like the idea of people manually modifying their database, and given that they can't prevent it on a UNIX system, their next step will probably be to so thoroughly obscureware everything that you couldn't find your way around without a big ball of string. What's more, in a development group environment, when a user's directory is default drwx------, it's a great pain to explain to every PC owner that she must change the permissions s.t. files can be shared among group members. etc, etc. Lyle. lws@comm.wang.com