Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!janus!cws
From: cws@janus.Quotron.com (Craig W. Shaver)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Esix vs Sco
Summary: nothing
Message-ID: <613@janus.Quotron.com>
Date: 13 Sep 90 18:09:19 GMT
References: <201642@hrc.UUCP>
Organization: Quotron Systems Inc., Los Angeles
Lines: 30

In article <201642@hrc.UUCP>, dan@hrc.UUCP (Dan Troxel) writes:
> Something has been hounding me for weeks. It is those Esix ads, comparing
> themselves with Sco, and how they blow them away. For such a great price,
> my question is,
> 
> 	What is *wrong* with the Esix package?
> -- 

I do not think anything is wrong with the Esix package.  I have tested Esix
rev. B, C, and D on my system and like it very much.  The installation and
some of the admin are not as good as the straight Xenix but are workable
after some practice.  I want to see it get kicked around a little more
before recommending it to business users and clients without much computer
experience.  I have also looked at ISC 2.2 on the same machine and do not
like it at all.  For developers you will find that the include files are
messed up, and they are no better than Esix for installation and sysadm.

Right now for customers I want to stick with Xenix 386 (not the unix one)
and am looking forward to SysV.4.  It had better be cheap or I will
stay with what is currently being used.

Craig W. Shaver

================================================================
part time consultant for Productivity Systems 213-396-7195 - and -
Quotron Systems Inc.    | Phone: (213) 302-4247
5454 Beethoven Street   | uucp: hacgate!janus!cws
Post Office Box 66914	| craig@tradr2.quotron.com
Los Angeles, CA 90066   |
================================================================