Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!hc!lanl!cmcl2!phri!marob!daveh
From: daveh@marob.MASA.COM (Dave Hammond)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix version, ahem, based on System ahem...?
Keywords: Just what is the naming convention for Xenix?
Message-ID: <468@marob.MASA.COM>
Date: 19 Jan 89 13:29:50 GMT
References: <2790@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond)
Organization: ESCC  New York City
Lines: 26

In article <2790@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>There seems to be total chaos on the naming front in the Xenix world. We're
>running Xenix 3.5, which is an old Xenix based on SIII or V7 (depending on
>who you talk to). Meanwhile the SV-based Xenixes seem to have names like
>Xenix 2.2.1.
>
>What's the naming history of Xenix, and what are the different versions
>based on?

The Xenix's distributed by SCO (for generic *86's), have had version
numbers 2.*.* for the past 3 or 4 years.  The current OS version
is 2.3.*, the current Development version is 2.2.*.  SCO Xenix has
gone through a progressive upgrade from System III-based (with BSD extensions)
to System V-based (ditto) with each new version.

To the best of my knowledge, hardware vendor-supplied Xenix's (Altos,
Tandy, etc.) were originally ported from a Microsoft-supplied, V7-based
Xenix known as Xenix 3.*.  However, I believe these manufacturers newer
386-based machines run a newer Xenix (possibly System V-based).

In all cases (regardless of porting base) Xenix runs a V7-style init/getty
login.  Newer versions have optional inittab login handling.

--
Dave Hammond
...!uunet!masa.com!{marob,dsix2}!daveh