Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ncar!ico!vail!rcd
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: PC UNIces
Message-ID: <1989Dec18.180148.2051@ico.isc.com>
Date: 18 Dec 89 18:01:48 GMT
References: <841@crash.cts.com>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO
Lines: 28

In article <841@crash.cts.com>, jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
[discussion of nonexistence of PC BSD deleted]

> Why SCO and various other makers of PC-Unix license from AT&T instead of BSD
> is a mystery to me, but that's the way it works in the PC domain.

Well, let me try to remove the mystery.  You can like it or not; that's
your choice, but here's why:  They want to sell their systems.  It's really
that simple.

Because they want to sell their systems (preferably lots of them; helps
stay in business:-) they want to sell to businesses...or to resellers who
will sell to end users, but in that case the reseller is the business.
Now, try to put yourself in the wingtip oxfords and three-piece of a good
conservative businessman:  Do you buy the system based on a Real Product
from a Real Business like AT&T, one which will Surely Stand Behind Its
Products...or do you buy one based on some stuff out of a university, built
by some longhair kids who'll be gone as soon as they graduate?  (It's a
joke, son...don't bother flaming.  Yes, I know that, e.g., McKusick has
been at Berkeley far longer than the average senior technical person stays
at one job in industry.)

In other words, it's the perception that the system is a product that has
sold AT&T.  I suppose that another plausible view is that using an AT&T
system as a base offers more opportunity for a VAR to add value.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
   ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.