Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: SCO Unix security features
Message-ID: <15759@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 16 Aug 90 01:12:25 GMT
References: <1990Aug13. <881@mwtech.UUCP> <1990Aug16.174514.2646@NCoast.ORG>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Lines: 15

In article <1990Aug16.174514.2646@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) writes:
>And you still haven't answered my biggest question:  why do I have to put up
>with this *at all* when the machines I have to install and maintain this on
>need nothing more than simple group vectors and /etc/shadow?

You don't.  There are about five other 386 UNIX ports out there.  I
recommend anyone who doesn't want to get stuck with C2 security buy one
of them.  (They all run Xenix binaries nicely, by the way.)  These
messages asking "I think I want Unix for my 386, but does SCO sell it
yet?" make me chuckle -- surely this is the sweetest coup in brand name
recognition any value-added reseller ever pulled off...
-- 
"The analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever |1+0-| Tom Neff
to originate anything.  It can do whatever we know |+0-1| tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
how to order it to perform." -- Ada Lovelace, 1842 |0-1+| uunet!bfmny0!tneff