Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!su11+ From: su11+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen H. Underwood) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Which UNIX? Message-ID: Date: 10 Sep 90 15:54:44 GMT References: <33718@cup.portal.com> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: <33718@cup.portal.com> I worked at a company for about 2 years that used nothing but SCO for it's unix, and while there I ported/attempted to port quite a few standard unix programs. In general I found that the system was awful,, laden with kludges, and a lot of standard packages contain disclaimer lines in them that say "If you are attempting to port this to Xenix, good luck, and tell us if you get it to work." When I purchased my own system, I desided tro try Esix. The support is not quite as good as the support you can buy from SCO, but it's free, and most of us can't afford to buy a support licence. The operating system in general was MUCH more compatable with sysv on the whole, and I was able to port even the most difficult package with relative ease. What you give up are on line man pages, a little memory, and some disk space, as it's not quite as tight as SCO. Also the manuals will cost you some if you don't have access to Unix manuals from elsewhere. And you have to give up the "brand name" of xenix. On the other hand you don't have to give up a large application base, as you can run xenix binaries on an Esix system, and can install most Xenix application packages on Esix (anything that does not require a kernel rebuild.) Personally I would rather be running Esix than Xenix, even if they cost the same. (diskclaimer - I don't work for Esix, and don't know anyone who does, I just like their product.) Stephen H. Underwood The Heechee The Nephron su11@andrew.cmu.edu "The colliflour has nothing to say to you."