Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!tness7!ninja!sys1!techsup!cpe!tif
From: tif@cpe.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: SCO vs. Microport Xenix
Message-ID: <12400005@cpe>
Date: 1 Jul 88 13:55:00 GMT
References: <27000026@urbsdc>
Lines: 30
Nf-ID: #R:urbsdc:27000026:cpe:12400005:000:1446
Nf-From: cpe.UUCP!tif    Jul  1 08:55:00 1988


Written 11:21 pm  Jun 28, 1988 by athos.rutgers.edu!hedrick
>>Does anyone in netland own a copy of SCO Xenix or Microport UNIX for
>>a "286" AT?  I'd like to know if you are happy with it.
>I've got Microport Unix for the PC/AT.  Whether it's acceptable
>depends upon what you want.  It's a very vanilla System V release 2.
>It's pretty much like a very small Unix timesharing system,
>not a workstation.  That is, everything you expect to find on a
>Unix-based workstation is missing: no window system, not even any
>graphics (though you do have access in a fairly clean way to the
>bitmapped memory, so if you want to do things yourself you can -- and
>somebody recently posted some graphics routines).  About the only
>thing they do that you can't do on a glass TTY is support multiple
>virtual consoles (ALT F1 through ALT F4 switch you between 4 screens,
>... [lots of negative comments]

Rather one-sided negative

SCO XENIX doesn't have most of the problems mentioned here.  Realistically
it isn't a workstation (i.e. graphics) but it does Unix SVR2 plus some
berklyisms pretty well.  In my opinion, at this point, anyone running DOS
under *nix is silly (lets get a car and drive it on two wheels instead
of getting a motor-cycle in the first place!).

I have a real machine (386) at work but I'd be plenty happy to have a SCO
Xenix on an AT at home.

			Paul Chamberlain
			Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp.
			ihnp4!sys1!cpe!tif