Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.nd.edu!cartan!ndmath!nstar!larry
From: larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Xenix *is* Unix (WAS Re: ^3 What ....... Dell UNIX V.4)
Message-ID: <1990Nov23.184635.2568@nstar.rn.com>
Date: 23 Nov 90 18:46:35 GMT
References: <1990Nov17.225432.17394@pegasus.com> <2330@sixhub.UUCP> <1990Nov21.232102.26005@pegasus.com> <1990Nov23.080906.24510@robobar.co.uk>
Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd.
Lines: 22

ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes:

>> No way will I go with Xenix.  I need real Unix.

>are not helpful.  Xenix *is* a real Unix, in many ways more real than
>most System V releases prior to 3.2.  At least the V7 stuff didn't get

I disagree.  Xenix is good for installations with limited resources 
(286, 386sx or 16 mhz 386 with a couple megs of ram and MFM or RLL
drives and dumb ports) - but for someone who wants a hot performer
Xenix is not the way to go.

For someone with the hardware - real Unix (not SCO) is the way to go.

Xenix was the only answer a couple of years ago - but not in the 90's.


-- 
       Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA 
 {larry@nstar, {uunet|backbone}!nstar!larry, larry%nstar@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu}
                     backbone usenet newsfeeds available
         Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)