Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Path: utzoo!telly!evan
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: SVR4 shipping, sort of, allegedly; Microport is baaaaack
Organization: Sound Software
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 90 20:50:35 GMT
Message-ID: <26BB351D.466C@telly.on.ca>
References: <1990Jul31.013258.14239@nstar.uucp> <1990Jul31.222503.2034@intek01.uucp> <1990Aug2.003304.19278@alembic.acs.com> <1990Aug3.214737.7651@cichlid.com>

In article <1990Aug3.214737.7651@cichlid.com> aab@cichlid.com (Andrew A. Burgess) writes:

>Two, SCO won't be upgrading to S5R4 for a while. They have said on the net
>(I believe) that they will add R4 functionality to their port of R3.2.
>I personally don't trust them to get things (BSD file system and utilities,
>job control, fill in the blank _____) as right as the real S5R4.

This jives with something I heard on the grapevine. The word was that
SCO was flat out never going to get the AT&T SVr4 license, but will just
add features to its 3.2 to give it "functionality" of future releases.

If true, it means SCO customers are destined to relive the Xenix
politics all over again, just when it was all supposed to be resolved.
In the same way that Xenix System V was an old release of Unix, patched
up to work like Unix System V, will SCO's "Unix version four" be a
BSD-patched version of its 3.2?

Can someone from SCO publicly state what the company's policies are at
the present time regarding migration to Release 4? If you have no plans
to do it the same way as the rest of the world, at least be upfront
about it.

>People are interested in the little guys like Microport and ESIX
>because they can give you alot of bang for the buck.

And, because they're small, they tend to refrain from re-inventing
wheels.

-- 
   _____
  /     \
\/\/     |  Evan Leibovitch
 |  (o)(o)  Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
 C   .---_) evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan
  | |.___|
  |  \__/   "Son, there's a little Homer Simpson in all of us."
  /_____\