Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!tank!eecae!shadooby!sharkey!oxtrap!teemc!ka3ovk!ki4pv!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
From: fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: SCO Unix 3.2 <-?-> comp.unix.xenix
Keywords: SCO, XENIX, UNIX, 3.2
Message-ID: <193@icdi10.UUCP>
Date: 29 May 89 18:16:40 GMT
References: <184@usource.UUCP> <18698@cup.portal.com> <2022@egvideo.UUCP>
Reply-To: fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home)
Distribution: na
Organization: From Home but normally @ Compudata Inc. Phila PA
Lines: 28
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <2022@egvideo.UUCP> edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes:
>In article <18698@cup.portal.com> Dion_L_Johnson@cup.portal.com writes:
>>>What's to become of this newsgroup when SCO xenix becomes SCO
>>>unix?  
>>XENIX will be around for a while (especially for 286 machines)
>
>It's quite likely that SCO Xenix will be around (286/386) for quite a
>while. 
>On the other hand, SCO UNIX appears to be directed towards sites which
>require AT&T based UNIX, full binary portability, C2 level audit security,
>We have two very good products here, but they're directed towards different
>markets ("authorized comments" are welcome).

This does not check with the facts as I know them.
My assumption is that the 286 Xenix version will stay but that on the 386 
side it will simply go away and turn into SCO UNIX 386.

Am I wrong? I don't think SCO will support two 386 Unixes. I wouldn't.

Fred Rump



-- 
This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 
26 Warren St.                          ...{dsinc bpa uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010 or INTERNET:  fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@icdi10.uu.net
609-386-6846          "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..."  -  Schiller