Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!nic.csu.net!csun!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Unix popularity (was Re: The Unix story straight)
Message-ID: <1991Feb18.203338.13446@kithrup.COM>
Date: 18 Feb 91 20:33:38 GMT
References: <3172@unccvax.uncc.edu> <70662@microsoft.UUCP> <91049.125858UH2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 21

In article <91049.125858UH2@psuvm.psu.edu> UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes:
>Also, I would be surprised if there were *more users* of Xenix than of
>other Unices.  There may be fewer BSDs and Ultixes, but they are usually
>serving dozens of users, or more.  Also, I am not sure if it is fair to
>call a Dental Receptionist who turns on the patient package every morning
>a *Unix* user.

If I remember the figures correctly, most BSD-based systems are for
workstations; the xenix systems are for "turnkey" type of things, where the
person buying it has realized (s)he can put all twelve or so employees on a
$1k box (a '286).  Since all they are doing is running canned software, that
never sees a shell prompt, they don't *care* what's running under it, as
long as it meets their requirements, is cost effective, and works.  Believe
it or not, xenix (usually from sco, I must admit, even as biased as I am
about it) meets those criteria for many, many people.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.