Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!ilan343
From: ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,fido.unix
Subject: Re: wanted: UNIX or clone
Message-ID: <1991Apr28.212531.14727@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 28 Apr 91 21:25:31 GMT
References: <1991Apr27.142504.4081@mccc.edu> <1991Apr28.125102.1676@nstar.rn.com> <1991Apr28.155002.7791@unixland.uucp>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17

>
>In article <1991Apr28.125102.1676@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>>
>>The bottom line is to purchase applications that are supported under
>>your OS - and if the products aren't available specifically for your
>>flavor of UNIX - then take into consideration the money saved by
>>going with another vendor's release of UNIX might result in problems
>>in the long run.
>
I don't dispute that this might be sound advice in practice, but I
don't think there should be any excuse for vendor specific 386
applications.  Either the software developer or the OS vendor are not
doing their job.  What are all those ABIs for?  

By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications
(WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under  some 386 Unix
variants?