Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:6265 comp.unix.xenix:12213
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!sumax!thebes!campbell
From: campbell@Thalatta.COM (Bill Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix vs. UNIX
Message-ID: <4716@thebes.Thalatta.COM>
Date: 27 Jun 90 14:31:33 GMT
References: <3304@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: campbell@Thalatta.COM (Bill Campbell)
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Lines: 33

This month's issue of Computer Language has a comparison of 386
Un*x including SCO Xenix and UNIX and Interactive.  Apart from
some gaffes (Interactive also produces Xenix) the article was
pretty good.

They do make the points:
	1.	Xenix is smaller
	2.	Xenix is faster
	3.	Xenix is cheaper.

I totally agree with this, and for my major use (on-line
transaction processing and accounting applications) I don't want
or need GUIs or the other ``creeping featurism'' of ODT...

The Computer Language article also complained that Xenix was not
totally UNIX compatible.  I have been using Xenix since 1982,
starting on the Tandy Model 16.  I have never found any significant
portability problems going from Xenix to UNIX System III or V
that weren't caused by System V changing things for the better
such as:
	grep -y being replaced by grep -i (ignore case)

Every time I get on a ``pure'' UNIX box I miss Xenix commands
like ``copy -romv'' and 'l'.

I would like to see Xenix maintained (Bug fixes) and marketed for
those of us who don't really need the bells and whistles being
added to UNIX.
-- 
....microsoft--\                    Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
...uw-entropy----!thebes!camco!bill 6641 East Mercer Way
....fluke------/                    Mercer Island, Wa 98040
....hplsla----/                     (206) 232-4164