Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SCO License security - another flame
Message-ID: <1991May06.120520.23606@virtech.uucp>
Date: 6 May 91 12:05:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: virtech.1991May06.120520.23606
References: <91V712w164w@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc.
Lines: 26

I almost didn't respond because you two have gotten down to name calling
instead of trying to discuss things reasonably, but I thought I would throw
my $.02 in anyway:

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

>Read my lips:  SysVr4 was *not* shipping when SCO shipped 3.2.0.  When SCO
>started shipping 3.2v2, SysVr4 was shipping from a couple of vendors, but
>was still buggy, huge, and slow.  (Not that 3.2v2 wasn't buggy, huge, or
>slow, but it was somewhat better in all three respects than the SysVr4's
>I've seen and played with.)

Yes compared to 3.2, 4.0 is huge and buggy (I'm not convinced it is slow).
However, when SCO decided to release 3.2, IT was huge and buggy when 
compared to Xenix, so that reason does not seem to be a show stopper for them.

They must have some other reasons like, "it took X $$ to get 3.2 up and
running and stable, so we need to stay with 3.2 long enough to make a 
profit off that $$", or "we came close to loosing alot of customers over
that 'dropping Xenix' stuff and we can't do the same thing again, but we
don't want to support 3 different OS products"

-- 
Conor P. Cahill            (703)430-9247        Virtual Technologies, Inc.
uunet!virtech!cpcahil                           46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160
                                                Sterling, VA 22170