Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!micor!latour!ecicrl!eci386!woods
From: woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods)
Subject: Re: rn won't compile on my SCO UNIX
Message-ID: <1991Mar15.201344.23070@eci386.uucp>
Reply-To: woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
References: <39757@cup.portal.com> <10652@scolex.sco.COM> <2681@happym.wa.com> <1991Mar12.000248.4935@digibd.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 20:13:44 GMT

In article <1991Mar12.000248.4935@digibd.com> rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) writes:
> 	Personally, I've found the QUALITY and feel of SCO's product MUCH
> 	nicer than ISC's. ISC feels rough around the edges all over the place
> 	even in their most recent version. SCO feels more finished to me, 3.2.0
> 	was a rough OS, so was ISC 2.{01}, 3.2v2.0 fixed the problems found
> 	in 3.2.0. There is still the question of SCO security but that is
> 	a religeous issue, it CAN be lived with.

Well, unless you can specifically identify what you call "rough eges",
nobody knows where you are coming from.  For all I know at this point,
you could be a BSD biggot [;-)], and since SCO UNIX might have a few
of the BSD features you like, already compiled and installed, you
might not find as many rough edges.

Since I'm a SysV biggot, I personally feel that AT&T's release of
SysV/386r3.2.2 is smoother than any of the others.

In reality, any derrivative of UNIX System V/386 Release 3.2 should be
compatible in more ways than just the ABI, and it turns out that SCO's
isn't in some ways, such as the behaviour of 'cc'.  Backwards
compatability is one thing, but making MuSh-C the default is, IMHO,
taking things a bit far!
-- 
							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