Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:2955 talk.rumors:2509
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!husc6!spdcc!ima!trb
From: trb@ima.ima.isc.com (Andrew Tannenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,talk.rumors,comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Interactive (was uport death rumors)
Keywords: microport
Message-ID: <3445@ima.ima.isc.com>
Date: 9 Mar 89 22:37:52 GMT
References: <285@swusrgrp.UUCP> <1652@trantor.harris-atd.com> <3422@ima.ima.isc.com> <140@cbw1.UUCP>
Reply-To: trb@ima.UUCP (Andrew Tannenbaum)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston, MA
Lines: 25

> I actually read William's article to imply that while uPort was going out of
> business (finally!), that Interactive was doing well and in fact had been
> purchased by a LARGE company with great capital resources.

Problem with vague statements and usenet and rumors is that different
people will interpret them in different ways.  You can't rely on people
interpreting things the sensible way.

Now, as for Karl Denninger's note about poor response on his troubles
with bad block handling in 386/ix 2.0, we in the Cambridge, MA office
of ISC (not the east coast office Karl refers to, which is, I believe,
our support office in Hollis, NH) are having problems with the bad
block support, and we are banging on the 386/ix hackers (in Santa
Monica) to fix it as well.  So, we know it's a bug.  If one of our
support people didn't realize it was a bug, give him a break.  Now he
knows.

My biased personal opinion follows:  I think 386/ix 2.0 is a really hot
system for the bucks.  Way fast, with X11r3 support for decent
monitors, networking, runs Xenix binaries, runs DOS applications
including Flight Simulator, etc.  It might still have nits, but we're
working on getting 'em out, and I think we have a broader base of
hardware and software options than any of our Sys V 386 competitors.

	Andrew Tannenbaum   Interactive   Cambridge, MA   +1 617 661 7474