Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: utzoo!telly!eci386!woods
From: woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods)
Subject: Re: SCO doesn't sell UNIX
Message-ID: <1990Dec4.204218.23827@eci386.uucp>
Summary: that's for sure!
Reply-To: woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
References: <2332@cdin-1.UUCP> <1990Dec01.061344.6240@kithrup.COM> <1990Dec3.044437.21678@ping.uucp> <1990Dec03.090337.1142@kithrup.COM>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 20:42:18 GMT

In article <1990Dec03.090337.1142@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> Before you ditch SCO, please let me urge you to consider getting 3.2v2.
> It's not perfect (nothing is), but it's a lot better than 3.2.0.  I'm
> running it at home, for example, which I wouldn't do if I didn't think it
> was worth it (I'd run xenix instead, which I did for quite a while).

Hmm...  Funny how other vendors were able to take 3.2 and get it
running reasonably well, even those with relatively little UNIX
experience.  Sure they took a few revisions before it was working
well, but at least the first release didn't scare everyone silly!

However, SCO, after having been in the UNIX-clone market for such a
long time, take what I hope was a recent SysVr3.2 tape from AT&T, and
manage to munge it up so much that people (including me) have been
complaining since it was released.  On top of that, we have people
(from SCO) telling us SCOr3.2v0 is broke, and before you ditch SCO,
please try SCOr3.2v2!

I can't believe anyone would rush a product (not that being many
months behind everyone other release of 3.2 can be construed as
rushing) as important as this in such a way that Quality Control
would go to the wind and they'd admit it took 2 revisions before
it was worth anything!

Personally, I'll stay with the faction that won't even consider
running SCO-UNIX until the C2 security stuff is a complete option, and
the SCO-3.2-generic is just as generic as all the rest.  Regardless of
what other features and mis-features are in SCOr3.2v2, I'll "suffer"
with some other SysVr3.2/386.  I don't want anything to do with C2
security unless it's a requirement of the client, and then probably
only if they are big and important enough to make it an un-equivocal
and outright mandatory requirement!

Meanwhile, I'll probably be running "generic" SysVr4.0/386 long before
SCO get their 3.2 sorted out!  Some people already are running 4.0.
-- 
							Greg A. Woods
woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP		ECI and UniForum Canada
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]    VE3TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA
"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible"-ORWELL