rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (11/30/90)
vlr@litwin.com (Vic Rice) writes: > Wouldn't the pending release of OSF/1 have some impact on SCO's willingness > to work V.4 ? The first time I saw this, I thought "of course not; why would they bother with OSF/1?" But I thought about it a little more and decided that maybe it was sensible to ask, even though it seems pretty unlikely that any of the current clan of 386 UNIX vendors would go to OSF/1. I'm not sure what would be gained with OSF/1 vs V.4, and V.4 is certainly much closer to "reality (as we know it)." Anyone with a crystal ball forsee a 386 OSF/1 in the "near future"--say in the next year or so? If so, from whom and why? -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."
perand@admin.kth.se (Per Andersson) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov29.222544.2505@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >Anyone with a crystal ball forsee a 386 OSF/1 in the "near future"--say in >the next year or so? If so, from whom and why? No crystal ball, sorry. But a few facts.. i386 support is in osf/1. i386 support for Mach was done by Olivetti and Intel I think. As to who will ship binaries - well ? Who are the members shipping i386 systems ? -- Per Andersson (perand@admin.kth.se, perand@stacken.kth.se) Trying a new job at Bofors Electronics, still reading news at the Royal Institute of Technology Time, got the time tick tick tickin' in my head - Joe Jackson