Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!ilan343
From: ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: wanted: UNIX or clone
Message-ID: <1991Apr29.204310.22760@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 29 Apr 91 20:43:10 GMT
References: <1991Apr28.155002.7791@unixland.uucp> <1991Apr29.031654.17360@agate.berkeley.edu> <24@metran.UUCP>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 21

In article <24@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>> >Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive
>> >Unix - but not for ESIX.
>> 
>
>I think it's just a case of Wordperfect not realizing how similar ISC UNIX
>and ESIX are. 

(Deleted Stuff - Excellent discussion on using off-the-shelf software
in under Xenix, ISC and Esix - see original article)

Let me try to bring this thread to its conclusion.   How can Esix (and
all the small-volume 386/ix vendors like Dell, Microport, UHC) expect
to stay in business  if users are not 100% sure they can run 
software sold for SCO and ISC?  

Someone mentioned in a previous posting that commercial software is
unimportant for most Esix users.  IMHO, this is only the case because
interesting software is either expensive or unavailable.   I hardly
ever use a spreadsheet, but when I do, I would love to be able open a
window with EXCEL instead of sc.