Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!xylogics!world!madd
From: madd@world.std.com (jim frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: UNIX runs DOS applications?
Message-ID: <1989Dec3.014701.28774@world.std.com>
Date: 3 Dec 89 01:47:01 GMT
References: <719@crash.cts.com> <1989Nov17.202018.10930@ico.isc.com> <[257510c5:69.2]comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@nstar.UUCP>
Organization: Software Tool & Die
Lines: 31

akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
>If on the other hand - you want a solid, supported product with a fail
>safe file system - and VP/ix that does run DOS applications - I would suggest
>SCO.

>I've been in both shoes and would suggest SCO to EVERYONE over ISC.

>And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Probably not, but I've been on the other side.  SCO's networking
support is wretched.  Its X11 support is worse.  Its compiler is
pretty scary.  And they don't seem nearly as responsive to bug reports
as they could be.  ISC has many problems but they are damned
responsive; the current release worked just fine for me (didn't try
serial throughput but it kicked SCO out the door with ethernet
throughput and its network support worked out-of-the-box -- SCO
required a hell of a lot of STREAMS configuration -- and disk
throughput which is excellent in current releases).  The next release
looks like it'll be even better.

With documentation, on the other hand, SCO wins out over every other
UNIX vendor I've ever seen.  They have good docs (and they're even
going to print my sockets tutorial :-).

If you want a system that runs your applications, SCO is the winner.
For an X11 system, networked system, or development system, ISC is
better so long as you can live without wonderful documentation.  It
all depends on your needs.

jim frost
madd@std.com