Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!unixland!bill
From: bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: wanted: UNIX or clone
Message-ID: <1991Apr25.231055.9621@unixland.uucp>
Date: 25 Apr 91 23:10:55 GMT
References: <9104182040.41@rmkhome.UUCP> <1991Apr21.222710.410@unixland.uucp> <1991Apr25.143615.12473@nstar.rn.com>
Organization: Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix
Lines: 33

In article <1991Apr25.143615.12473@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>
>ISC and their FFS is so much faster than ESIX - and so many off the
>shelf UNIX applications are available for ISC (Word Perfect and Norton
>for example).. 

I've seen this said over and over again by Larry (the FFS issue).  I haven't
seen the same from anyone else.  Say, anyone else out there have this
experience?  The ESIX FFS may well be slower than ISC's -- but it doesn't
"feel" any different to me than the other Unix systems I work on (Harris
Sysv with FFS, SunOS in various flavors).  

I guess there's probably more to the issue than "how it feels."

As far as apps go ... the original conversation was about HOME Unix systems.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I doubt that the majority of people can spend 
$500 to $1K on a single software package (other than the OS itself).
When I got WP5.1 for my DOS machine, I paid something like $220 for it.
That's the price range most people expect for software for home machines.

That being said, I agree that ISC has the name advantage over ESIX.
If we're in the business of talking about NAMES, though, SCO has the
unmitigated lead.





-- 
bill@unixland.uucp                 The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix
...!uunet!think!unixland!bill
...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill
508-655-3848 (2400)   508-651-8723 (9600-HST)   508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)