From: david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Date: 6 Sep 92 15:11:23 GMT
Organization: SOFTWARE / DYNAMIX
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA06705; Sun, 6 Sep 92 08:39:49 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA24165; Sun, 6 Sep 92 08:39:18 -0700
X-Received: from dynamix.UUCP by uu3.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)id AA24413; Sun, 6 Sep 92 11:36:11 -0400
X-Received: by dynamix.com (smail2.5c)id AA05645; 6 Sep 92 11:11:23 EDT (Sun)
X-To: comp.unix.xenix.sco.usenet (comp.unix.xenix.sco)
X-In-Reply-To: <1190@consult.UUCP>; from "Bob Willey CDP" at Sep 3, 92 12:50 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

> 
> This discussion seems to be getting off track quite a bit.
>

I agree completely ... so lets focus on the inital statements Marc made
that lead to this debate ... here they are, quoted directly from his post:

[Marc's words]   (underscores mine)
Well, that's good advice even if Xenix is going to be supported
forever.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this -- especially in the SCO
Xenix newsgroup -- but I don't think Xenix is an appropriate product
for new installations anymore.  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SCO should definitely keep supporting
its existing customers through bugfixes and new (bugfix) releases, but
I don't think SCO should expend any effort adding new features to
Xenix, and I don't think SCO resellers should recommend Xenix as a
solution to customers who don't already have an installed base of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Xenix machines.  People who are already on Xenix should not be forced
to move to Unix, but they should be gently encouraged to make the leap
at an appropriate time.  For example, when they're considering an
upgrade from Xenix 2.3.2 to Xenix 2.3.4; or when they're considering
getting a new hard drive.
Face it, folks.  The world is moving towards POSIX and other standards
more every day.  With this in mind, it just doesn't make sense to
choose a bastardized SVR3-wannabe for new installations.  The falling
price of hardware has made all but irrelevant the consideration that
Xenix runs in less RAM and takes less CPU horsepower than Unix.  Xenix
no longer has any real reason to exist, except for the people that
have an existing Xenix installation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[end of quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong Marc, but this last sentence summarizes your whole
point:   Xenix has no reason to exist except for existing Xenix sites 

> This is not meant to be a shooting match of individual features of
> Xenix -vs- UNIX.  We have nothing against SCO UNIX, the original point
> was specially that you cannot just discount SCO Xenix as:
> "not apprpriate".  SCO Xenix does have its place and for a lot of

Exactly ... and I don't know of one single company out there who sells
*only* Xenix and not Unix ...

> The whole discussion started to discuss the idea that someone should not
> even recommend Xenix as an option, but rather to force them into
> SCO UNIX because it is the only O/S they should even consider.
> UNIX has its place and so does Xenix.  And Xenix will continue to be
> appropriate for a lot of sites for a LONG time to come.

Again, Bob is right on target with my initial argument ... BOTH Xenix and
Unix have their place, and it is a benefit to the client for us to know
which is best for them ...



#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
#          David L. Jarvis                 SOFTWARE  /                 #
#          david@dynamix.com                       /  DYNAMIX          #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------#