Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hsi!stpstn!gaboon!odicon!jlg
From: jlg@odicon.UUCP (John L. Grzesiak)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Taking risks on software (ISC)
Summary: Again...
Keywords: unix dos vpix
Message-ID: <274@odicon.UUCP>
Date: 2 Dec 89 18:35:49 GMT
References: <240@hdchq.UUCP> <106@gizzmo.UUCP> <[25711bb0:160.7]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP>
Organization: Omega Dynamics , Meriden Ct. ODICON.UUCP
Lines: 73

In article <[25711bb0:160.7]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP>, akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
> >problems with any NEW product. ISC has a very solid product on the market,
> >yet we must expect problems as the product continues to evolve.  If you 
> 
> I would disagree.  ISC's product does not work as advertised and with the
> poor documentation I consider it not even in the running in it's current
> stage.  I have suggested that my users invest in a real product such as
> SCO 3.2 - since I know they will get support from real people with a
> professional attitude.  

Wow , some people do continue to live in a vacuum.
 While I do agree that Interactive has not chosen to spend an inordinate
 amount of time and money in documantation, and that SCO 's is head and
 shoulders above Interactive in this respect, this is the limit of my
 agreement. After having used early I.S.C. (pre 386) and being fairly
 satisfied, I was persuaded to try SCO Xenix. I was impressed by their
 beautifull full page adds and the impression they had made of certain
 stodgy elements in the company I worked for at the time.
 Early experience with SCO was exciting (pre 3.2 annoucement or commitment),
 SCO really HAD a technical support department, my questions were reasonbly
 answered (both expedient and technically accurate), however after the
 announcement of 3.2 the world had changed, no longer was the SCO experience
 a pleasant one, for SCO adopted the policy of non-support for XENIX, that
 UNIX 3.2 was the wave of the future and SCO was going to promote that wave
 by removing almost ALL of it's engineering from XENIX and accelerating the
 port of their 3.2 UNIX. In addition , I feel SCO rushed a very immature 3.2
 to market, for there are some major problems with it. All SCO did was the
 major work with almost NO attention to details (Example: a dd command that
 fails to write the last track of a DS/HD 5 1/4 floppy) This is NOT an obscure
 bug. It does not belong in a production operating system. Add to that, a very
 poor and untested SCSI driver, non-function parallel printing (it works - just
 barely..) ... and you get a very BAD taste in your mouth , when you expected
 a production operating system. Interactive on the other hand, while not a
 system for a novice (Due to poor documantation) is absolutely no problem
 for experienced UNIX users and administrators and for any user that was
 willing to learn UNIX as a generic product with the many fine books 
 written and readily available at local bookstores. Add to that, with the
 notable exception of problems in 2.02 NFS , the 2.02 product is a very
 solid and stable product. To their credit Interactive focused on details
 of providing solid, first time functionality. They were NOT willing to
 release a half cooked OS and fix it on the fly. And yes , even Interactive
 has bugs that they were'nt aware of , but this was not due to any rush on
 Interactive's part to get the product to market. On a lighter note there
 are differences in the two products that extend beyond the above. SCO has
 done a fairly neat job of automating the System Administrators package, with
 the only disadvantage that is visible, is that it is inflexible to those
 of us who prefer manual Administration. And Interactive's Admin is fairly
 standard AT&T (ala 3BX flavor).

 Before this posting become a completely pro-Interactive anti-SCO monolouge
 let me state that I have had good experiences (at different times) with 
 both companies, and I have also been unsatisfied (at different times) with
 both companies and neither company has show any particular unique ability
 to satisfy all customer problems. The bottom line of what I am saying is 
 that Interactive has solved many of it's internal problems with support
 in addition to having a very mature UNIX product. SCO , while having a
 very stable XENIX product is not yet ready to be a UNIX player and they 
 have a LOT to learn about the feelings of Corporations and Consultants
 who base their futures on the best that can be found. In my opinion SCO
 has betrayed my faith in their XENIX product and has undermined my future
 by not supporting a product that they claimed they would continue to 
 support. They have left me high and dry in my work today to pursue future
 sales and $$$$. ANY company who's present is not at least as important as
 it's future does not merit serious consideration.



	*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
	* John Grzesiak @ Omega Dynamics :  Specializing in UNIX/XENIX    *
	* Meriden Ct USA                 :    Consulting . . .            *
        * jlg@odicon or spock!odicon!jlg : gaboon!odicon!jlg              *
	*-----------------------------------------------------------------*