Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!kithrup!sef From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Summary: What's wrong with SCO (long) Message-ID: <1991Apr25.180938.21875@kithrup.COM> Date: 25 Apr 91 18:09:38 GMT References: <1991Apr17.210627.4517@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1991Apr18.063914.13111@kithrup.COM> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Lines: 24 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Apr18.063914.13111@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >> Point in SCO's favor: AT&T and Intel have adopted sco's >> implementation for the iBCS thingy; as a result, ISC is not compatable with >> the standard, and any isc-written COFF program will not work on future >> releases. >How does this jibe with Intel dropping direct sales of UNIX and passing it >on to ISC? As *I* read it (not being privvy to the thoughts of anyone in the industry, mind you), ISC consideres their 3.2 product to be obsolete, with the introduction of SysVr4. (They're probably right. I could see wanting to keep xenix, but I don't think there's as much a difference between 3.2 and 4.0 as there is between 2.3 and 3.2.) >It's almost enough to make me want to try OSF/1. Almost. SCOSF/1? 8-) -- 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.