ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (11/23/90)
I don't disagree with richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) when he writes stuff like: > SCO has, so far, promised NOT to go with V.4 -- buzzing about in their own > separate reality. But statements like: > No way will I go with Xenix. I need real Unix. are not helpful. Xenix *is* a real Unix, in many ways more real than most System V releases prior to 3.2. At least the V7 stuff didn't get taken out. If you mean that it isn't a real System V from the internals point of view, sure, that's true, but that's a very different thing from saying that Xenix isn't a real Unix. And SCO's current Xenix will run your SVR3.2 binaries too. I can't see how an application user is going to tell the difference. SCO Unix, on the other hand is a different kettle of fish altogether. That *isn't* Unix as far as any program system distributed in source is concerned, because they've completely changed the semantics of just about everything so much (because of their "security" <barf> "enhancements") so it might be fair to call SCO Unix "Not a real Unix". > And I very much want to go with V.4 when it's stable. This is probably a good reason not to go with SCO, but in no way changes the fact that Xenix *is* real Unix. If by "a real unix" you really mean "I need to be able to use drivers written for <specific flavour of Unix>" then please say that. Or whatever aspect of Xenix does not fit your requirements. But perhaps I should have mailed this. Too late. Maybe we could continue by e-mail? -- ronald@robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (11/24/90)
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >> No way will I go with Xenix. I need real Unix. >are not helpful. Xenix *is* a real Unix, in many ways more real than >most System V releases prior to 3.2. At least the V7 stuff didn't get I disagree. Xenix is good for installations with limited resources (286, 386sx or 16 mhz 386 with a couple megs of ram and MFM or RLL drives and dumb ports) - but for someone who wants a hot performer Xenix is not the way to go. For someone with the hardware - real Unix (not SCO) is the way to go. Xenix was the only answer a couple of years ago - but not in the 90's. -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA {larry@nstar, {uunet|backbone}!nstar!larry, larry%nstar@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu} backbone usenet newsfeeds available Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)
wnp@iiasa.ac.at (wolf paul) (11/25/90)
In article <1990Nov23.184635.2568@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: > >>> No way will I go with Xenix. I need real Unix. > >>are not helpful. Xenix *is* a real Unix, in many ways more real than >>most System V releases prior to 3.2. At least the V7 stuff didn't get > >I disagree. Xenix is good for installations with limited resources >(286, 386sx or 16 mhz 386 with a couple megs of ram and MFM or RLL >drives and dumb ports) - but for someone who wants a hot performer >Xenix is not the way to go. Your statement above has NO BEARING on the question of whether Xenix is real UNIX or not. "Hot Performance" is not a criterion for judging whether an OS is "real UNIX". UNIX Version 7 was not a hot performer by today's standards, but it definitely was "real UNIX". System III on a PC/XT (aka PC/IX) certainly was not a hot performer, but it was "real UNIX". Xenix-286 in fact performed better than some ports of UNIX System V.2 to the 286 -- even though they were "real UNIX" (compiled from AT&T source code!) they were not hot performers. I cannot judge the respective "performance temperature" of Xenix-386 and System V.3-386, but regardless of that, they are both "real UNIX". Now, "real System V" is another matter -- but System V is NOT the only real UNIX. -- W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (11/26/90)
In article <1990Nov23.184635.2568@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: | I disagree. Xenix is good for installations with limited resources | (286, 386sx or 16 mhz 386 with a couple megs of ram and MFM or RLL | drives and dumb ports) - but for someone who wants a hot performer | Xenix is not the way to go. In what way is needing fewer resources a drawback? We run a lot of systems at work, and about the half are Xenix. They low end is 8MB 386-25, so I don't think we really lack resources. | For someone with the hardware - real Unix (not SCO) is the way to go. I what way is SCO UNIX "unreal?" Is this some secret flaw SCO has been hiding? I'd like to know what I missed when I evaluated V.3 versions. | Xenix was the only answer a couple of years ago - but not in the 90's. True, but that doesn't mean it's not still one valid answer. Xenix (and SCO UNIX) still offer support for more hardware and software than other vendors, good reliability, online manuals, etc. That doesn't make them a perfect fit for everything, but I don't see anything which disqualifies them, or anything which so clearly beats them in every case that I would pass on evaluating them. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) (11/27/90)
In article <2390@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1990Nov23.184635.2568@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > >| I disagree. Xenix is good for installations with limited resources >| (286, 386sx or 16 mhz 386 with a couple megs of ram and MFM or RLL > > In what way is needing fewer resources a drawback? Bill, you are so right. XENIX bashers should realize, IMHO, they are still playing the cards dealt by IBM when they released the System III fiasco, surely trying to give *ix a bad name in the pedestrian market. SCO XENIX is the most righteous thing going when you consider: o installed base o cost o device support o feature o resource requirements XENIX/386 sucks a lot of performance out of any platform it is on. UNIX 3.2 and ODT benefit GREATLY from the XENIX trip; ya gotta have more box, for sure, (and bux :-), but ya get more too. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Tucker, TuckerWare emory!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US ANSI C should have been named D, or Son of C
aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) (11/30/90)
In <244@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US> wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) writes: >In article <2390@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >>In article <1990Nov23.184635.2568@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >> >>| I disagree. Xenix is good for installations with limited resources >>| (286, 386sx or 16 mhz 386 with a couple megs of ram and MFM or RLL >> >> In what way is needing fewer resources a drawback? >Bill, you are so right. XENIX bashers should realize, IMHO, they >are still playing the cards dealt by IBM when they released the >System III fiasco, surely trying to give *ix a bad name in the >pedestrian market. SCO XENIX is the most righteous thing going >when you consider: > o installed base > o cost > o device support > o feature > o resource requirements > >XENIX/386 sucks a lot of performance out of any platform it is on. Absolutley! SCO Xenix is a great platform. Many are also under the belief that SCO are trying to drop Xenix, which of course is total hogwash. In fact, there is a release 2.3.4 on the cards which will have many new features i.e. korn shell, > 16MB ram support, and all the the current sls fixes all built in. SCO plan on selling (and supporting) Xenix for a LONG time to come. Aris -- Aris Stathakis | Bang: ..!uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!tabbs!aris or aris@tabbs.UUCP - UNIX is like sex - if you've tried it, you can't get along without it. - - If you haven't you really have no idea what the fuss is all about! -
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (12/01/90)
In article <2319@tabbs.UUCP> aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) writes: >In <244@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US> wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) writes: >>In article <2390@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >>XENIX/386 sucks a lot of performance out of any platform it is on. > In fact, there is a release 2.3.4 on the cards which will have >many new features i.e. korn shell, > 16MB ram support, and all the the >current sls fixes all built in. Would you care to tell us where you got that info. One of my vendors who is level (1 or 3 - whatever is the HIGH volume vendor) tells me that 2.3.2 is the end of the line, and I seem to remember that is what SCO said at one time. Have they changed their mind? -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) (12/03/90)
In article <2319@tabbs.UUCP> aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) writes: >In fact, there is a [xenix] release 2.3.4 on the cards which will have >many new features i.e. korn shell, > 16MB ram support, and all the the >current sls fixes all built in. > >SCO plan on selling (and supporting) Xenix for a LONG time to come. Somehow I see a parallel with classic coke here. In both cases, the new product did not provide the hoped-for lure that the maker's market- ing team promised. The old product has to be continued else market share will be lost. -------------------- David Mason | "Strange the mind, mason@oct1.UUCP | that very fiery particle, "olsa99!oct1!mason"@ddsw1.MCS.COM | Should let itself be snuffed out ...!ddsw1!olsa99!oct1!mason | by an article." Byron
berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) (12/06/90)
mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) writes: >In article <2319@tabbs.UUCP> aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) writes: >>In fact, there is a [xenix] release 2.3.4 on the cards which will have >>many new features i.e. korn shell, > 16MB ram support, and all the the >>current sls fixes all built in. >> >>SCO plan on selling (and supporting) Xenix for a LONG time to come. >Somehow I see a parallel with classic coke here. In both cases, the >new product did not provide the hoped-for lure that the maker's market- >ing team promised. The old product has to be continued else market >share will be lost. However, this time, I think people are switching to the "new Coke". Just wait till they switch to Pepsi among all of the confusion. ============================================================================== "Round and round the while() loop goes; Whether it stops," Turing says, "nobody knows."
aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) (12/07/90)
In <1990Nov30.174152.18632@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >In article <2319@tabbs.UUCP> aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) writes: >> In fact, there is a release 2.3.4 on the cards which will have >>many new features i.e. korn shell, > 16MB ram support, and all the the >>current sls fixes all built in. >Would you care to tell us where you got that info. One of my vendors who >is level (1 or 3 - whatever is the HIGH volume vendor) tells me that 2.3.2 >is the end of the line, and I seem to remember that is what SCO said at one >time. Well, lets just say I get this info directly from SCO :-) If I say anything more I might incriminate myself :-) >Have they changed their mind? Yup. Looks that way. The new 2.3.4 will be around in May 1991. Aris -- Aris Stathakis | Bang: ..!uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!tabbs!aris or aris@tabbs.UUCP - - - Never let your schooling interfere with your education. -