Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!robobar!ronald
From: ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: how to connect to ethernet
Summary: SCO TCP is not as EVIL and RUDE as it used to be.
Keywords: ethernet, xenix
Message-ID: <1990Aug20.133643.459@robobar.co.uk>
Date: 20 Aug 90 13:36:43 GMT
References: <1990Aug15.221258.13776@hoss.unl.edu> <1487@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Lines: 30

In article <1487@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes:

> First, their license server which was
> implemented with broadcast packets is rude and evil.

It's not as bad as it used to be, Chip:

/* begin quote from sosco!/usr/spool/uucppublic/SLS/lng227.ltr ----------------
|
|  SLS lng227 also contains a new /etc/cpd daemon that only checks for copy
|  protection violations on bootup, as opposed to a periodic check which
|  presents an unwanted network load.
|
|_ end quote from sosco!/usr/spool/uucppublic/SLS/lng227.ltr -----------------*/

Given that they're stuck with the Lachman stuff till they find the
time to write their own :-) I think that's probably fair enough....

> Second, I think it's overpriced: [ ... deleted ] = $1185. 

Very true, but is there a cheaper alternative ?  If there is, I WANT TO KNOW!!

I must admit that lack of a FFS (and no chance to add NFS) on Xenix has
forced me to consider moving to SCO Unix (ho hum) but if there's a
cheaper TCP/IP alternative there as well, do post !

(and please don't say "run KA9Q" :-)
-- 
Eunet: Ronald.Khoo@robobar.Co.Uk  Phone: +44 81 991 1142  Fax: +44 81 998 8343
Paper: Robobar Ltd. 22 Wadsworth Road, Perivale, Middx., UB6 7JD ENGLAND.