Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!robobar!ronald From: ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: XENIX expiration date? Message-ID: <1990May3.084324.23452@robobar.co.uk> Date: 3 May 90 08:43:24 GMT References: <2480@crash.cts.com> Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Lines: 33 In article <2480@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > > > With respect to SCO Xenix 386, to my knowledge 2.3.3 is the LAST version > of 386. Eh ? Can someone from SCO comment on this please? I was under the impression that 2.3.3 is actually OLDER than 2.3.2 being a "branch version" to bugfix support for VPix or some such abomination. Was my impression wrong ? It's a pity SCO are intending to stop supporting Xenix. I do realise that resources are stretched, and all that, and that the market wants a more generic product, but SCO are going to lose a lot of friends if they don't at least continue to make minor upgrades to maintain compatibilty with new basic machines, even if they can't keep supporting new add-on peripherals, etc. In fact, stopping DEVELOPMENT of the Xenix product is in many ways a GOOD THING, because it'll give us a nice stable kernel to work with. You know, for PRODUCTS that have to go through the front door :-) It's a shame that the sxt driver will never be fixed to work properly and include support for select() etc, but I suppose I can live with that. (Yes, sxt's are useful if you have a job control shell, NOT with shl though -- :-) However, stopping support is another thing altogether. If I can't buy a Xenix to work on a then-new ISA-based 386 box in 5 years time (and Yes, I do believe they will exist, look how new XT-type boxes continue to appear even today) I will indeed feel that SCO would have failed the small system user. -- Eunet: Ronald.Khoo@robobar.Co.Uk Phone: +44 1 991 1142 Fax: +44 1 998 8343 Paper: Robobar Ltd. 22 Wadsworth Road, Perivale, Middx., UB6 7JD ENGLAND.