Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!milhow1!how From: how@milhow1.UU.NET (Mike Howard) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: SCO stopping enhancements for Xenix? Keywords: SCO Xenix Message-ID: <280@milhow1.UU.NET> Date: 3 Mar 90 12:31:52 GMT References: <1313@polari.UUCP> Reply-To: how@milhow1.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Organization: Miller/Howard Investments, Malden-on-Hudson, NY Lines: 34 In article <1313@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: >In article , larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >> Has anyone else heard anything from SCO about stopping ... Xenix development > >MicroSnot 5.1 compiler. Today I was told there will be no upgrade for the ^^^^^^^ >xenix development system, if I want to upgrade I have to go to Unix (and I don't think this is quite correct. As I recall, SCO uses the word `upgrade' when they change the second (or leading) digit of a release number. This would mean that there will be no Xenix Dev Sys 2.4.x ... They seem to use the word `update' when there is a `bug-fix'/minor enhancement fix and they change the third digit of the release number. This argues that there will be a Xenix Dev Sys 2.3.1 or 2.3.2. FYI - lng#085 contains a 386 compiler which is based on the Microsoft 5.? compiler - as well as a few bugs. There is mention of a lng#085b in the bowels of the SCO bulletin board - but it is _not_ being shipped and media does not know about it (as of my last contact) - because of the imminent `update'. I wish that SCO had chosen a less cryptic vocabulary - even at the expense of a few more words. They could have said `bug-fix release' or `minor upgrade' or ... and `major release' or `big and nifty release' or ... Disclaimer: I have no relation with SCO except that I use their products. This info is to the best of my knowledge - which is known to be flawed. -- Mike Howard uunet!milhow1!how or milhow1!how@uunet.uu.net