Xref: utzoo alt.sources:3437 comp.unix.sysv386:5784
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!milton!sumax!halcyon!happym!happym.wa.com!Irving_Wolfe
From: Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com
Newsgroups: alt.sources,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: rn won't compile on my SCO UNIX
Message-ID: <2681@happym.wa.com>
Date: 8 Mar 91 04:07:27 GMT
References: <1821@utodaycom> <1990Oct06.011938.8384@virtech.uucp> <39757@cup.portal.com> <10652@scolex.sco.COM>
Sender: irv@happym.wa.com
Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island
Lines: 29

Oh, come on!  Almost everyone knows that LOTS of good things, well-written in
proper C, won't compile under SCO's UNIX-flavored operating system.

When we upgraded to 3.2.2 from 3.2.0 because the latter just plain didn't
work, I unfortunately lacked the presence of mind to demand a simultaneous
upgrade for the development system that doesn't work.  Because of that, I have
no idea whether the "fixed" version of the development system actually works
or not.  Given SCO's standards for quality before release, and given its
standards for how to treat the customer -- "Hey, he was stupid enough to buy
our sh.t, tough luck to the idiot!" -- I'd be very surprised if it worked.

Almost everyone knows, also, that part of the problem is Microsoft's C
compiler, but since SCO has been a source code licensee all along, that's no
excuse.

I still wish SCO had upgraded us to a new development system that works, but,
hey, what should I expect?  From day one they were lies and dirt.  It's all my
fault.  If I were a vicious fighter, I'd have gotten them to give me the new
one free, and the one after that if it still wouldn't compile standard C.  If
they actively attacked me, they'd be a pile of smelly waste.  But they didn't,
they just SUB-criminally robbed me, just as they take advantage of the rest of
the public, so all I can do is tell the truth about them as I see it, and hope
that many of you are smart enough to buy from Interactive or ESIX or even
Microport, instead.

I've been programming computers for 33 years -- I started on the vacuum tube
IBM 650 -- and I've never seen a company with a more irresponsible attitude
towards its customers than SCO.  It's just my opinion, but this one deserves
to die!