Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!compuram!pgd
From: pgd@bbt.se (P.Garbha)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Problems with SCO Unix/Xenix
Message-ID: <1990Jun11.080015.381@bbt.se>
Date: 11 Jun 90 08:00:15 GMT
References: <4664@minyos.xx.rmit.oz> <1990Jun9.135124.16301@bbt.se> <2672BA95.6696@marob.masa.com>
Organization: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
Lines: 60

In article <2672BA95.6696@marob.masa.com> daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond) writes:
>
>Whoa there, bud.  I am not a SCO-vangelist, however I respect a
>reasonably competant product.
>
>I have made my living managing/programming Unix on Intel machines for
>over 5 years.  I have run SCO on hardware ranging from Everex parts
>stuffed into a no-name box to brand-name machines from Compaq, HP and
>IBM.  I have also run ISC ix/386, Venturcom Venix, IBM Xenix, Altos
>Xenix, Tandy Xenix and MWC Coherent, all on Intel machines.  They all
>have problems, some worse than others.  For production environments I
>still recommend and install SCO.
>
>Before you go maligning the SCO staff, check out your hardware for
>components which are not supported or kernel configuration limits which
>are obviously exceeded.
>

I really love that phrase "check out your hardware for components
which are not SUPPORTED". It is a good "catch-it-all" for problems.
"Of course it is not working, because you use the Y-brand component,
and on page 736 of the installation manual, at bottom of the page, we 
clearly state that only X-brand components are supported" :-)

Considering the big noice about the com.unix.sco newsgroup, and the
comments i got on my text, i do think that there are quite some
SCO-vangelists here. It is obviously a hot issue.

To SCO or not to SCO -- that is the question. :-)

Still, many programs (which are working on other unix-systems) have
bugs introduced on Xenix.
For example, the c-compiler cannot compile a bigger program without
giving a "compiler bug" or two (i have switched to gcc). sdb sometimes
crashes on programs, sometimes give error messages.
Some working programs does NOT work when compiled with gcc and libc.
Some of the buggy essential programs are: getty, login, fsck, ps.
Of programming tools: cc, sdb, make, sh
I cannot remember all the programs i have found bugs in, it is so common.

The kernel works quite nicely, though, so by replacing all programs
with the GNU (or BSD) equivalents, you get quite a nice operating environment.
(Oh, i forgot the buggy serial port driver... But i don't use that one either.)

An its non-compability......
Anyone who have taken a few programs from the net knows that only very
small programs work without being patched. Has anyone tried to port
smail 3.1? Good luck! 
Hint: don't try it with cc, and use the -lmalloc switch, and it works
somehow. Actually, don't try any bigger program without gcc and gdb.

If you think that it is resonable that getty, login, fsck, ps, cc,
sdb, make, sh, vpix, (and others) does not work properly, vote YEA for
sco, if you think not, vote NJET for sco.

It would be interesting to know what experiences others have of
other-brand unix-type operating systems. Can it possibly be the fact
that all PC- operating systems are not properly working?

(When is the GNU-kernel coming. I am missing it so much)