Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcupt1!hpisoa1!vandys
From: vandys@hpisoa1.HP.COM (Andrew Valencia)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Xenix/UNIX/Weirdix/...
Message-ID: <11190010@hpisoa1.HP.COM>
Date: 8 Aug 88 18:59:27 GMT
References: <1227@ficc.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 18

/ hpisoa1:comp.unix.microport / peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) /  7:01 pm  Aug  6, 1988 /

>	Microport/Bell Tech UNIX: Ferrari system. All the fancy features.
>		Fuel injected multiport turbo.

	Try running some file system benchmarks.  2.3 uport eats it against
SCO 2.2.  Why the big surprise?  SCO compiles their kernel with large code/
small data, and has a better code generator.  Other features are things like
exec() not pulling its stuff through the block cache.  The things *I*
like about uport have to do with standard configuration--mail goes where I
expect it, and is delivered using the expected mechanisms.  You ever tried
to follow SCO's mail mechanisms?  Bletch.  Their compiler is more vanilla.
No more -Ze/-Zi/-Z<foo> bullshit.  About the most you have to do is add -Ml
to the CFLAGS.  SCO delivers solidity and performance with a noticeable
weirdness level.  uport delivers a modicum of stability, weaker performance,
but a dependably vanilla sysV.  With the merged product from SCO just around
the corner, this comparison could soon be obsolete.  Stay tuned...

					Andy