curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (01/25/91)
I'm getting ahold of an older version, 2.1.1, of SCO Xenix 286 very
cheaply. My question is, how different is it from 2.3.2, and how might
this affect the installation of common programs such as rn and C news?
Is it worth it to spend a few hundred dollars and get 2.3.2, if I have
that option? Or can I get by fine with 2.1.1?
cjs
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | "What do the letters in EBCDIC stand for?"
curt@cynic.uucp | "ASCII. 'ASCII' becomes 'EBCDIC' in the
{uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | EBCDIC character set." --Steve Connellyglen@sungate.UUCP (Glen Barney) (01/25/91)
In article <91JBw1w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca>, curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: > I'm getting ahold of an older version, 2.1.1, of SCO Xenix 286 very > cheaply. My question is, how different is it from 2.3.2, and how might > this affect the installation of common programs such as rn and C news? With respect to communications, at least, the most important difference is the fact that 2.3.2 has a new HoneyDanBer version of uucp, whereas the 2.1.x releases had the old uucp. I run 2.1.3 on an XT-86 (that was the last version for the XT) and have no problems with the older uucp for sending and receiving mail; however, I've been unable to test news on it - it's just a mail gateway. > Is it worth it to spend a few hundred dollars and get 2.3.2, if I have > that option? Or can I get by fine with 2.1.1? Both are correct. You can get by fine with 2.1.1; however, it's in your interest to run 2.3.2 simply because it's a much richer environment and has a lot more features. -- --*-- --*-- --*-- --*-- --*-- --*-- --*-- --*-- --*-- --*-- --*-- Glen / sungate! 301-330-4700 It'll take time, but we're going far... BangPath: uunet!sungate!glen you and me, I know we are... In time, InterNet: glen%sungate@uunet.UU.NET we'll be dancing in the streets all night