Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com (03/08/91)
Oh, come on! Almost everyone knows that LOTS of good things, well-written in proper C, won't compile under SCO's UNIX-flavored operating system. When we upgraded to 3.2.2 from 3.2.0 because the latter just plain didn't work, I unfortunately lacked the presence of mind to demand a simultaneous upgrade for the development system that doesn't work. Because of that, I have no idea whether the "fixed" version of the development system actually works or not. Given SCO's standards for quality before release, and given its standards for how to treat the customer -- "Hey, he was stupid enough to buy our sh.t, tough luck to the idiot!" -- I'd be very surprised if it worked. Almost everyone knows, also, that part of the problem is Microsoft's C compiler, but since SCO has been a source code licensee all along, that's no excuse. I still wish SCO had upgraded us to a new development system that works, but, hey, what should I expect? From day one they were lies and dirt. It's all my fault. If I were a vicious fighter, I'd have gotten them to give me the new one free, and the one after that if it still wouldn't compile standard C. If they actively attacked me, they'd be a pile of smelly waste. But they didn't, they just SUB-criminally robbed me, just as they take advantage of the rest of the public, so all I can do is tell the truth about them as I see it, and hope that many of you are smart enough to buy from Interactive or ESIX or even Microport, instead. I've been programming computers for 33 years -- I started on the vacuum tube IBM 650 -- and I've never seen a company with a more irresponsible attitude towards its customers than SCO. It's just my opinion, but this one deserves to die!
emanuele@overlf.UUCP (Mark A. Emanuele) (03/11/91)
In article <2681@happym.wa.com>, Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com writes: > > I have > no idea whether the "fixed" version of the development system actually works > or not. I just got the upgrade. Now stuff that compiled on 3.2.0 wont compile on 3.2.2 -- Mark A. Emanuele V.P. Engineering Overleaf, Inc. 218 Summit Ave Fords, NJ 08863 (908) 738-8486 emanuele@overlf.UUCP
rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) (03/12/91)
In article <2681@happym.wa.com> Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com writes: >Oh, come on! Almost everyone knows that LOTS of good things, well-written in >proper C, won't compile under SCO's UNIX-flavored operating system. > >When we upgraded to 3.2.2 from 3.2.0 because the latter just plain didn't >work, I unfortunately lacked the presence of mind to demand a simultaneous >upgrade for the development system that doesn't work. Because of that, I have >no idea whether the "fixed" version of the development system actually works >or not. Given SCO's standards for quality before release, and given its >standards for how to treat the customer -- "Hey, he was stupid enough to buy >our sh.t, tough luck to the idiot!" -- I'd be very surprised if it worked. > [ More flames deleted... ] I've found that when the Microsloth C compiler bombs out, the rcc C compiler tends to work pretty well. I'm a gcc fan from way back so I immediately put up gcc and gdb. Mr. Wolfe seems to have had many problems with SCO UNIX, I would like to say that in most cases I've gotten around those problems with rcc and a little .h and manual research... As far as upgrading the development system, does ANY 386 UNIX vendor give you a MAJOR upgrade for free or at LOW cost? 3.2v2.0 has many changes, improvements and upgrades. I would classify it as a major rather than minor upgrade. As far as being treated rudely by SCO, it's never happened to me so I can't comment on his statements... Personally, I've found the QUALITY and feel of SCO's product MUCH nicer than ISC's. ISC feels rough around the edges all over the place even in their most recent version. SCO feels more finished to me, 3.2.0 was a rough OS, so was ISC 2.{01}, 3.2v2.0 fixed the problems found in 3.2.0. There is still the question of SCO security but that is a religeous issue, it CAN be lived with. Mr Wolfe had such a negative view, I wanted to balance it out with my positive view and experiences. -Rob
rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) (03/13/91)
In article <22@overlf.UUCP> emanuele@overlf.UUCP (Mark A. Emanuele) writes: >In article <2681@happym.wa.com>, Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com writes: >> I have >> no idea whether the "fixed" version of the development system actually works >> or not. >I just got the upgrade. Now stuff that compiled on 3.2.0 wont compile >on 3.2.2 > Could you elaborate on what won't compile? You might have to add a -Di386 to rcc compiles, the rcc preprocessor was fixed a bit too much in the version 2 development system... I'd advise getting gcc from the public archives if rcc and microsloth c drive you crazy... -Rob
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar12.000248.4935@digibd.com> rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) writes: > Personally, I've found the QUALITY and feel of SCO's product MUCH > nicer than ISC's. ISC feels rough around the edges all over the place > even in their most recent version. SCO feels more finished to me, 3.2.0 > was a rough OS, so was ISC 2.{01}, 3.2v2.0 fixed the problems found > in 3.2.0. There is still the question of SCO security but that is > a religeous issue, it CAN be lived with. Well, unless you can specifically identify what you call "rough eges", nobody knows where you are coming from. For all I know at this point, you could be a BSD biggot [;-)], and since SCO UNIX might have a few of the BSD features you like, already compiled and installed, you might not find as many rough edges. Since I'm a SysV biggot, I personally feel that AT&T's release of SysV/386r3.2.2 is smoother than any of the others. In reality, any derrivative of UNIX System V/386 Release 3.2 should be compatible in more ways than just the ABI, and it turns out that SCO's isn't in some ways, such as the behaviour of 'cc'. Backwards compatability is one thing, but making MuSh-C the default is, IMHO, taking things a bit far! -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL