From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:15:46 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI

In article <9209021728.AA01630@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:
>application will run perfectly on different systems.  It means that single
>binary will successfully execute. Period.  It doesn't provide for
>differences in filesystem layouts, file naming conventions, specific file
>location and usage, and all the other b'zillions of subtleties
>that do now and will continue to separate the various Unixes out there.

If the application is written properly, getting it to execute properly
is about 90% of the battle.  Filesystem layout and file location can
either be configured by the sysadmin when he sets things up, or can be
fixed with symlinks.  (Oops, I forgot.  Xenix doesn't have symlinks.
Sorry, I guess you lose.)  Despite what you might think, most of the
versions of SysV-based Unix for the 386 are surprisingly similar in
the issues you mention.  Which file(s) is/are it that Esix put in a
different place from Dell?

>instead of opinions to back that up?  I haven't talked to a single vendor
>who's even so much as HINTED at dropping Xenix support (I'll qualify this
>by saying that Xenix 286 support is waning, and with good reason) 

So what are the "good reasons" to drop Xenix/286 support?  As far as I
can tell, it's still a viable OS -- there are people out there still
running it (I know, we have a client who is using it), and it serves
their needs just fine.  So why is it okay for vendors to ditch
Xenix/286, but not okay for them to drop Xenix/386?  After all, apps
compiled for Xenix/286 will run on Xenix/386, plus SCO Unix, ODT, and
SVR4...

(Or is it that Xenix/286 is missing lots of features -- like a decent
memory model -- that vendors want to use?)

>Xenix is the absolute most mature and stable product on the *nix market.  

Again, you're making these sweeping statements.  Qualify "mature" and
"stable", please.

>What exactly do you mean by "clean"?  

I mean that SCO Unix doesn't have ugly kludges like Xenix's
pseudo-inittab file.  Or Xenix's horrid V7-style kernel configuration.
And ever try to get Xenix to use domain-style e-mail addresses with
the software SCO supplies?

>Easier to administer?

Yep.  I don't have to keep two separate areas in my mind for "the way
Xenix does things" and "the way everything else does things."  

>How many Xenix systems have you administered or are you currently
>administering?  How many *different* Unix systems?

I think I answered that a day or so ago.  I don't directly manage any
Xenix systems at this point; over the past couple years, I've managed
probably five or six.  Right now I do technical support for our
customers, some of whom are running Xenix, some of whom are running
Unix, and some of whom are running ODT.

>Nice choice of .sigs ... sounds like you're out to enlighten the entire 
>world (and not just us unfortunates on c.u.x.sco!)  to your way of
>thinking.

It's a JOKE, Dave.  Y'know, like, something you laugh at?  Get a clue.
No, here, take two -- they're small.

>#  Real men don't try to tell the world what a real man does.          #

Oooh.  Why, I feel so...unMANly now.

-- 
Marc Unangst                | Real men don't use Windows.  Real men use X. 
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   | Only a real man would use a GUI where the
                            | shift keys after "Alt" are "Super" and "Hyper."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco