jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/15/91)
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article <VR.9HWB@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>Show me where it's being sold. How do I vote with my pocketbook if there >>are no names on the ballot? >SCO XENIX. Everyone wanted to go to SysVr3.2; SCO didn't create the market, >you know. Despite XENIX being very stable, small, and fast, people wanted >"real" UNIX. Because of the features, partially, and partially because of >the name. Really? On what planet? What I see from the outside as a consultant is SCO trying to dump Xenix and will do so as soon as the existing customer base turns its head long enough. I have 2 different clients who are going through the expense of porting from a proprietary OS (Xenix) to Unix PRECISELY because SCO is telling them that Xenix is going away. In one case, we waited for over 9 months for Win/TCP for Xenix/386 while SCO was telling us Real Soon Now. At the very same time, Wollingong told us that SCO had told them that Xenix was going away so they were not porting to Xenix/386. All this, of course, leaves the company that wants to stay with SCO with only the SCO Unix disaster. Both of my long term SCO VAR clients looked at the situation and went elsewhere. Of course, I expect you to say that this is the month that SCO tells people that Xenix is here to stay. You outta remember 2 things: a) only IBM gets away with FUD and b) you outta save your SCO marketing pap for the biz heirarchy where people don't know any better. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (03/15/91)
In article <8137@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >Really? On what planet? What I see from the outside as a consultant is >SCO trying to dump Xenix and will do so as soon as the existing customer >base turns its head long enough. I don't blame them. Supporting two radically different operating systems, each with a completely different set of tools, is a pain. Do you blame them for trying to dump the one that the market doesn't really want? Why do you think SCO went to 3.2 in the first place? It wasn't because they own stock in companies that manufacture disk drives and memory chips! If people wanted small, stable products, why did sales for XENIX decline as soon as ISC and AT&T announced their versions of 3.2? Why do I see so many people in this group saying how much they want SysVr4? -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.