Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:7435 comp.unix.i386:295 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!gatech!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Xenix vs. Unix? Summary: Xenix 2.3 IS SV COFF binary compatible Message-ID: <1989Sep3.222437.25599@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 3 Sep 89 22:24:37 GMT References: <12@dynasys.UUCP> <14@nstar.UUCP> Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL Lines: 61 In article <14@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >In article <12@dynasys.UUCP>, root@dynasys.UUCP (Super user) writes: >> 1) What is the difference between SCO Xenix and SCO Unix? Or what is the > >I had been running both SCO 2.3.1 and Interactive 2.02 and it appears that >I will be sticking with 386/ix. SCO Xenix is their Xenix product which >is less memory hungry and offers support for thousands of products that >run under pure Xenix. Xenix is not Unix binary compatible. Nonsense. Xenix 2.3 runs all 80386 Unix COFF binaries that I have tried, including those that use shared libraries. For example, I have successfully run the Microport "vi" from their '386 release -- Xenix's reads /etc/termcap, and I wanted one that read terminfo. So I loaded uport's -- it works fine. Xenix also works with nearly everyone's tape drives. 386/ix works with Wangtek only. I could go on; the hardware support on 386/ix is "somewhat lacking" IMHO. >SCO Unix >on the other hand will execute both Xenix and Unix binaries (likewise 386/ix) >and cost more, but lacks a developers system (it currently still is not >shipping) - while Interactive is shipping a complete product to support >Unix V5 which will also execute Xenix binaries (I was running my Xenix >Usenet binaries under 386/ix without problems and only recently recompiled >the source code under the native compiler). Unless you want to run 80286 Xenix binaries, in which case you may find out there are a couple of nasty surprises -- like SGID/SUID things don't work right. This may be fixed now, but it was definately a problem with V2.01. >If you are considering an OS - I would go with Interactive. You should >look at their file system - it has to be the fastest in the industry. Unless you count SCO Unix 3.2's ACER/Counterpoint Fast File System enhancement :-) (We don't have benchmark numbers yet, but I bet it gives 386/ix a good run for the money). Make sure you look at Interactive's support too -- in my experience (which is limited, I will admit) it's the worst in the industry. A customer of ours went against our recommendation and bought 386/ix -- and then had over eight months of finger-pointing to deal with regarding disk controller/drive compatibility problems. He got "well, it's not supported" -- this with a WD1006V controller (RLL 1:1 buffered). Their installation software (!) was badly broken and wouldn't accept defect lists properly. Now that 2.0.2 is released, it appears to be fixed -- although they never admitted it was broken in the first place! I won't buy 386/ix until they can demonstrate to us that it is working right AND that they intend to support the product. So far neither has been the case. If you put 386/ix into a commercial environment, from what we have seen, you are asking for trouble. It may be ok for the "hacker". -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"