Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!fmsrl7!hpftc!mco
From: mco@hpftc.UUCP (Mark C. Otto)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: Summary: Version Control Systems
Message-ID: <14875@hpftc.UUCP>
Date: 11 Dec 90 23:45:19 GMT
References: <1990Dec9.004748.28556@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, AMSO Midwest
Lines: 28

In article <1990Dec9.004748.28556@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> drz@csri.toronto.edu (Jerry Zarycky) writes:
>                                          ... The PVCS users seemed quite
>enthusiastic, while the RCS proponents were familiar with SCCS under UNIX.
>It's not clear whether the PVCS users had any experience with SCCS.
 
I have used all three systems extensively.  RCS and SCCS under UNIX and PVCS
under both DOS and OS/2.  I prefer RCS for portability and simplicity of
operation over PVCS, but PVCS with a good administrator is almost as
painless.  SCCS is rather antequated, but is *standard issue* on UNIX if
your development environment is going to be an off brand of UNIX in the future.

>Does anyone know if Standard Edition + Microsoft Lan Manager 2.0 is equivalent

It is infinetly better.  We run LAN Manager 2.0 and OS/2 1.21 at my workplace
and I have *plenty* of low memory to run large applications in the DOS
compatability box (for instance Windows 3.0, WordPerfect 5.0, etc.).  I will
warn you though, that there are on ethernet drivers available for LAN Manager
2.0 at this time (but if you already have drivers for ethernet under 1.1,
then you might ba able to figure out how to graft them in under 2.0 :-)).
Disk, modem, and printer transparency is *excellent* under 2.0.  By all means,
make the switch.



-- 
Mark C. Otto   EMail: mco@hpftc.UUCP, {teemc | fmsrl7 | rjf001}!hpftc!mco
Voice: 1-313-390-5001    USnail: 15301 Mercantile, Dearborn, MI. 48120
Disclaimer: Nobody should ever be held responsible for ANYTHING!