Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!ico!rcd From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: SCO flames (and V.4 comparisons) Summary: consistency please? Message-ID: <1991May6.002054.15900@ico.isc.com> Date: 6 May 91 00:20:54 GMT References: <1165@pemcom.pem-stuttgart.de> <91V712w164w@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <1991May04.194857.12216@kithrup.COM> Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO Lines: 32 sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes some responses to various complaints/questions about SCO UNIX, among them: > >System Vr4.0, > > A piece of crap. Buggy as hell, larger than 3.2, slow, ugly. Uh-huh...isn't this the same Sean who was raising hell about a week ago because people were flaming SCO? ...and who took pains to remind us that there were good engineers at SCO who had worked hard to put out a good product, and didn't deserve the sort of abuse that was being heaped on them? Scream like a stuck pig when someone insults your work, then turn around and label other folks' work "crap...buggy as hell...slow, ugly." So apparently only SCO's engineers have feelings--is that it, Sean? I don't like the flames that have been directed at SCO, but don't expect any sympathy until you show as much civility as you ask. on a slightly more technical tack... I tested and measured the then-current releases of V.4 and SCO's ODT about a year ago. V.4 was notably faster. The V.4 kernel was larger than the ISC V.3.2 (r2.2) kernel by a nontrivial amount, but it was *smaller* than the kernel for SCO ODT. V.4 also took a lot less disk space. Mind you, I don't think ANYone in SysVland has any basis for complaining that ANYone else's system is too big. They're all too big. V.4 was pretty stable back then. I haven't poked at a more recent version. ODT (which, note carefully, was young then) was somewhat less reliable than V.4. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.