From: keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith)
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 06:00:22 GMT
Keywords: Linux, Coherent, comparisons, *_OPINIONS_* ;^)

In article <Bv3zI7.L50@acsu.buffalo.edu> jmsimon@acsu.buffalo.edu (JMS) writes:
>In <v29nm5d.messina@netcom.com> messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>>
>>larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>>
>>>I would suggest Linux as well over Coherent -- it's free -- and complete
[...]
>*Since* they have been around for so long, why don't they support any
>type of networking, X, (or MGR for that matter); things to think about.

Networking is in the next release 4.1.  MWC did not get it's start in
writing unix clones.  They wrote lots of other reasonably priced stuff
like 'C' compilers, and such (you gotta remember WAY back).  I think the
Coherent to x86 port was kinda was a "keen idea", that developed a lot
more interest than they expected.  Then when the [34]86 became such a
popular platform they ported it on up.  I think it has only been
recently that MWC has really begun to push Coherent on PC platforms. 
And they are doing it by adhering to standards too.  iBCS, COFF, and
POSIX to name a few, although they aren't quite yet up to snuff.  That
means your Coherent program may run under SCO or SVR4 too.  They have
also mimic'd many of the SVR3 system calls, and have supported loadable
device drivers since the 286 days.  Give them a little time.  They've
been working on a 386 Unix for about a year with a handful of people and
produced a pretty darn stable product.

>
>If that is important to you, it's your money.
>
>>2. *Because* it is commercial.  That to me suggest that there is
>>   someone behind it that has a stake in it.  Linux is great for
>>   hackers, but it's future is a complete unknown, precisely because
>>   noone has a stake in it.
>
[ .96c stable, upgrade? ...]
>The nice thing is that if you _need_ a patch, you can count on it being
>made available without waiting for a big, slow, commerical entity to

Well,  now that sorta depends on what "needs" patching and who thinks
it's important, and whether or not you wanna hack it yourself or not.

Also, Coherent is not a big, slow, commercial entity.  In fact I'd call
it a small tight commercial entity.

>make said fixes available. Also, functionality to all commands and all
>parts of the OS are being worked on concurrently by people who have no
>_financial_ stake in the product -- their only stake is making the
>system work well for them; you can be sure quality is just as high if
>not higher, although there is no time overhead of waiting for shipping
>approval, etc.

shipping approval?  C'mon,  Coherent put out a fix to their keyboard
driver within about a month to allow older keyboards to work with multiple
Virtual consoles.  This was obviously from user requests.  You can be
sure it was THOUROUGHLY tested too.  In fact it installed on my box
without a hitch or glitch.  A financial stake can be a very high
MOTIVATOR to get something done too!  ie.  If I don't get this finished
I don't EAT this week.

[386BSD...]

>>3. Some people prefer to use the system for getting the work done and
>>   prefer to leave the kernel hacking to the authors of the OS.  They
>>   may prefer to purchase a product with a stable past and predictable
>>   future in terms of support and upgrades instead of becoming
>>   co-authors of the OS.
>
>I have a completely source compatible system with the SUNOS and Ultrix
>systems I commonly write software for. GCC is a great compiler, and the
>use of shared libraries (GCC 2.2.2d for Linux) keeps my small drive
>happy.

Yep,  Coherent needs shared libraries, VM and Networking to compete
beyond being a MESSY DOS replacement.  The latter 2 are slated for 4.1,
and the former has been discussed as a top future priority.  I think the
current push is to get the 4.0 device driver kit out the door.

By the same token, with compilers and awks and libraries and most of the
rest of the day to day *ix utilities Coherent 4.0 fits on 6 1.2M
floppies.  That does WONDERS for space.  GCC 2.X is a monster, but
someone is porting it to Coh.  In fact I have Coh loaded on a 386SX/33
(yes SX not DX /33) with an old DTC7287 (that Linux choked on) and a
sticky spindle ST251 (pushed to 60MB).  Haven't even hit 50% yet.

>
>>4. Coherent supports COFF binaries which Linux does not.  That in
>>   itself is a good reason.
>
>This is true, but if someone using BSD or Linux wants this functionality,
>you can be sure it'll be available before I finish typing this (or you
>finish reading it ;-> )

Nope,  I HAD a LINUX up for a while.  Swapped it for Coherent.  Coh
seems to be more hardware tolerant too.  Even runs a bunch of my SCO
stuff without recompile.  This is a major +.  LINUS has already said he
could care less about COFF/ELF, and system call compatability.  Of
course he could always change his mind.  Don't get me wrong.  I think
linux is really great.  I just wouldn't put it in a clients office, and
I can't see WordPerfect doing a LINUX port in the near future.  Coherent
on the other hand ...

>
>>Why not SVR4?  Well, I personally believe that is a great solution and
>>once I can justify a purchase of a completely new system I may go that
>>route.  
>
>Wow. I suppose if you have the $$$$ for that (I believe 4 digits would
>be correct?) that is an option. Many people would like to get their feet
>wet first, and may even find that a _free_ product completely suits their
>needs. There are trade-offs to everything. If you desparately need a 

I have MST SVR4 sans the networking cost less than $700.  I rate it
fair.  No manuals.  With Coherent you get a fairly comprehensive manual
that holds your hand thru the basics, like setting up uucp, and using
make, and awk and sed, and ...   Now with a free unix, you end up buying
$100 worth of commercial texts to figure all that stuff out, or you
spend $50 on paper to print whatever you can find (which will leave out
a whole bunch of stuff for a novice).

[ Features forcing your direction ...]
[ but try linux ...]
>in -- you'll never be charged for updates, and you won't have to wait
>2 years between releases, either. Bug fixes will be made available (when

Wow,  releases of what?  Who's UNIX, and what defines a "release".  a
USL relase (4.0, 4.1, 4.2 ...)  Or vendor sub-releases with bug fixes
and enhancements...

>necessary) a lot quicker than you'll find from any of our lumbering
>corporate giant friends.

That depends.  Don't hold your breath EITHER WAY.

Linux is great.  If you have a lot of time, and want to really roll up
your sleeves and build that car from scratch, AND if you are already
familiar with UNIX in the first place, go with LINUX.

If you just want to get a feel for a Unix like operating system, and
you'd like an easy installation, and one place to go with your problems
to get it fixed, along with some stability, and binary compatability,
and some reasonable documentation try Coherent.

>Sorry to go on like this. I just don't want to see anyone pondering
>a *nix feel they _have_ to buy something, just for the sake of
>buying it. Shop around if you are going to buy, but it doesn't hurt
>to give the free systems a shot.

Nope,  Not at all, but also consider what your TIME is worth, as well as
what it's going to cost you to collect all the "free" software, esp if
you are downloading it from a BBS or something.
-- 
Keith Smith          uunet!ksmith!keith            5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs      BBS 1-919-423-4216            Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit