Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!ico!rcd
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SCO's V.4 plans ...
Summary: OSF/1?? why???
Message-ID: <1990Nov29.222544.2505@ico.isc.com>
Date: 29 Nov 90 22:25:44 GMT
References: <1990Nov15.225728.16481@cbnewsm.att.com> <1990Nov28.025705.5736@litwin.com>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO
Lines: 17

vlr@litwin.com (Vic Rice) writes:

> Wouldn't the pending release of OSF/1 have some impact on SCO's willingness
> to work V.4 ?

The first time I saw this, I thought "of course not; why would they bother
with OSF/1?"  But I thought about it a little more and decided that maybe
it was sensible to ask, even though it seems pretty unlikely that any of
the current clan of 386 UNIX vendors would go to OSF/1.  I'm not sure what
would be gained with OSF/1 vs V.4, and V.4 is certainly much closer to
"reality (as we know it)."

Anyone with a crystal ball forsee a 386 OSF/1 in the "near future"--say in
the next year or so?  If so, from whom and why?
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."