Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sceard!mrm From: mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: SCO UNIX VMS and ULTRIX on new DEC product line Message-ID: <1990Dec26.172202.3600@sceard.Sceard.COM> Date: 26 Dec 90 17:22:02 GMT References: <29014@usc> <2777E87B.6392@tct.uucp> <29027@usc> <29029@usc> Reply-To: mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) Organization: Sceard Systems, Inc. San Marcos, CA 92069 Lines: 33 In article <29029@usc> annala@neuro.usc.edu (A J Annala) writes: [...] >I have installed the base operating system, development system, and tcp/ip >on a completely uninitialized machine with only guidance from a reference >manual. I created user accounts - downloaded, compiled, and installed gcc >and emacs in the appropriate directories - wrote a device driver for the >Data Translation QuickCapture frame grabber - downloaded and am now making >appropriate changes to install a SUN UNIX based image processing system. >I make periodic backup tapes. I am happy with the system. My users are >happy with the system. Living within C2 guidelines is causing us no real >grief. What more do you want from SCO UNIX? Real time responsiveness, dynamic rather than static tables, security without gaps, improved resource management, real protection from intentional as well as accidental denial of service...The list could go on, but you'd be bored. For fairness, I want this from more than SCO UNIX. > >The fact you have to change some of your habits to fit within the current >security framework should not drive so many complaints. Computer systems >change -- we have to change with them -- if people didn't accept the need >for change we would all still be writing machine code for monolithic IBM >7090's with no operating system, no compilers, and no interactive access. 7090's had compilers. 7090's had operating systems. WRT "computer systems change -- we have to change with them", it seems that this is cart before the horse. We should change computer systems to meet our requirements; it shouldn't be the other way around. If the current security framework doesn't meet needs, it should be changed to meet needs. If you are happy with SCO's implementation, good. That doesn't mean it meets everyone's needs. > >Take a hint from the biological sciences: we must evolve or die. We all die. Therefore, we all evolve or die :-) -- Mike Murphy mrm@Sceard.COM ucsd!sceard!mrm +1 619 598 5874