Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!phri!marob!daveh
From: daveh@marob.MASA.COM (Dave Hammond)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix reliability (Was: Re: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3)
Message-ID: <353@marob.MASA.COM>
Date: 8 Aug 88 13:00:22 GMT
References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <5084@rpp386.UUCP> <212@sulaco.UUCP>
Reply-To: daveh@marob.UUCP (Dave Hammond)
Organization: 18th Street Construction Co NY NY
Lines: 26

In article <212@sulaco.UUCP> allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes:
>In article <5084@rpp386.UUCP>, jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>  
>> thirty one days looks like reliable to me.
>
>I've got you beat!  I have gone 92 days without a crash.

Without getting too deep into this debate, I will add that I have SCO
2.1.3 and 2.2.1 running on several 286's (6mhz IBM, 10mhz Everex,
10mhz Compaq...) and none has "crashed" in recent memory, except when at the
mercy of the power company. With a UPS installed, the only time a system is
down is when the sysop brings it off-line. All systems run Arnet Smart-8
multi-port boards, 60mb tape drives, and at least 8 concurrent users (sysops
usually log in on several console multiscreens) on 2 shifts daily.

In my opinion, if you are alone in a lab and hacking (you may substitute
"researching") a Unix system - uPort is fine. If you have customers who
are NOT computer wizards, and you do not want to hear "why is this so
slow ?", "what's a core dump?", et.al, and you do not want to be spending
your time hand holding...  Xenix.

Dave Hammond                                                /dsix2!daveh
  UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | spl1 | ...}!{masa.com | hombre}!<
DOMAIN: dsix2!daveh@masa.com                                \marob!daveh
USMAIL: DSI Communications Inc, 333 W. Merrick Road, Valley Stream, NY 11580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------