chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/26/90)
According to annala@neuro.usc.edu (A J Annala): >According to DEC's advertisement in Computer Reseller News, the new >DEC 433MP System (1 to 6 coupled i486 CPU's, 64 MB global shared memory >64 MB/s system bus, 1.2 GB internal hard disk) will not run any variety >of VMS (or even ULTRIX) -- INSTEAD IT WILL RUN SCO UNIX!!! "He says he can shout -- don't hear you." Well, of course it won't run VMS. VMS is coded in VAX assembler. Care to translate a googol lines of VAX assembler to the 386? Me neither. The fact that DEC has decided to use SCO UNIX has approximately zero relevance to our discussion of SCO's implementation of "C2" security. >As far as SCO UNIX SYSTEM V/386 3.2.0 being difficult to deal with, you >might consider my experience with this system. I am a biologist -- not >a system programmer. A user who doesn't do anything complicated with system administration, or who has no history of system administration with other UNIX systems, will not fully appreciate SCO's "C2" for the botch it is. It makes things hard that used to be easy, and it makes impossible things that used to be possible. If that's not being "difficult to deal with," I don't know what is. (JFH is right. SecureWare ought to be paid off and blown off.) >Why is SCO UNIX so popular? The software is mature, well documented, and >well supported. SCO does not appear to release software products until >they are well tested. In short, from my perspective, SCO UNIX performs >as expected and does not interfere with work on my projects. I wholeheartedly agree ... with the glaring exception of SCO's "C2". That's why I've been pushing to make "C2" optional instead of mandatory: I like SCO UNIX otherwise, and I'd like to continue using it and developing software for it. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..." -- Bruce Becker
steve@nuchat.sccsi.com (Steve Nuchia) (12/27/90)
In article <2777E87B.6392@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >(JFH is right. SecureWare ought to be paid off and blown off.) It occurs to me that a good way to make that happen might be to find and publicize some holes in it. -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services (713) 964-2462 "Could we find tools that would teach their own use, we should have discovered something truly beyond price." Socrates, in Plato's Republic