Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: COFF binaries under 2.3 Dev Sys.
Message-ID: <13581@steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 11 Apr 89 20:33:30 GMT
References: <612@marob.MASA.COM>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 26

In article <612@marob.MASA.COM> daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond) writes:

| Is there anyone else on the net who feels that producing COFF-compatible
| binaries should be higher on SCO's list of priorities, than a "marketting
| future consideration"?

  Since V.3.2 will run Xenix executables, I'm not sure I have any
interest in getting COFF binaries. If you sell libraries, I can see that
it would be desirable, but otherwise... who cares?

  Having tried a number of COFF files under 2.3.1 I am pretty sure that
you would be able to run the software development package from any V.3.2
under Xenix to produce COFF.

| For the first time in 4 years, I am actively pursuing a non-SCO Intel/Unix
| environment.  A copy of 386/ix with VPIX and X-Windows arrives here shortly.
| (I guess its time to "g comp.unix.i386" :-\)

  I looked, but I guess I'll wait for SCO3.2 and/or Open Workbench or
whatever. I want NFS and X, but I need reliability more than capability.
I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone's tech support, but SCO
doesn't have the worst in the industry.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@crd.GE.COM)
  {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me