Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!cdin-1!fred
From: fred@compu.com (Fred Rump)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Summary: What's wrong with SCO (long)
Message-ID: <1991Apr16.183342.10185@compu.com>
Date: 16 Apr 91 18:33:42 GMT
References: <1991Apr14.022153.2099@emisle.uucp>
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Lines: 54

dvb@emisle.uucp (David Van Beveren) writes:


>The one-line summary is this: People who have SCO Unix are satisfied with it.

        Reading the various responses I get a different message back.
        It seems that satisfied is a bit of an understatement.


>However, my original impression that SCO is completely hopeless has been
>changed. 
        
        To what? The respondents plainly tell you that SCO has a better 
        product. Did you wish to listen or was your query mere 
        propaganda?
        
        >I still feel that ISC would be better for software development, but
>SCO isn't really so bad for users of the word-processing type who just need a
>terminal.

        A bit condescending wouldn't you say? With roughly 80% of the 
        world-wide market one would have to be pretty dumb to want to 
        swim upstream and claim the minority view is better. Or is it 
        that everyone else is wrong?
        
>Peoples opinion is that support for SCO unix seems to be better than ISC. I
>have never had a problem with ISC support, so I can't qualify that statement.

        But perhaps you should listen to the advice of your peers? Maybe 
        they DO know something you don't.

>Since my original posting, my customer got SCO and is trying to install it. He
>is having a terrible time. bug: The TCP/IP was unlimited user license and the
>core was 1-2 user license. Installation of TCP barfed completely here and
>support told them to get the multi user core. $$. Nice touch.

        Seems perfectly logical to me. That's what the license says. If 
        anything, call it a bug in the buyer's logic. If he's your 
        customer, you offering professional software services, should have 
        known what was required and installed the software for your 
        customer. Whatever you do don't blame the customer or SCO.
        
        All in all, the original post had a trend in it that seems not to 
        have changed even after all the advice from the net. So? Why 
        bother?
        

>EIS ltd. Professional Software Services     UUCP:   ..uunet!emisle!dvb

        Fred
        
        PS   OK, I admit to being biased, but based upon overwhelming 
        evidence. How about you?

-- 
Fred Rump              | Home of Brother John Software 
CompuData, Inc.        | SCO Advanced Product Center
10501 Drummond Rd.     | Bang: {uunet dsinc}!cdin-1!fred  (800-223-DATA)        Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| Internet: fred@COMPU.COM         (215-824-3000)