From: david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis)
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Organization:  SOFTWARE / DYNAMIX
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 11:26:26 EDT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA06781; Sun, 6 Sep 92 08:40:19 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA11963; Sun, 6 Sep 92 08:40:17 -0700
X-Received: from dynamix.UUCP by uu3.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)id AA24473; Sun, 6 Sep 92 11:37:10 -0400
X-Received: by dynamix.com (smail2.5c)id AA05740; 6 Sep 92 11:26:26 EDT (Sun)
X-To: comp.unix.xenix.sco.usenet (comp.unix.xenix.sco)
X-In-Reply-To: <2452@ispi.COM>; from "Jonathan Bayer" at Sep 3, 92 6:32 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

> 
> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
> 
> >My point was that he said he "never even considered Unix."  Now, how
> >could he possibly know if Unix was or was not appropriate if he never
> >even considered it?
> 
> He could know, use, and even install Unix at some customer sites, and then
> "never even considered Unix." for other customers.  He knows his customer's
> needs and was (and is) able to make informed decisions based on that knowledge.

This is right on target Jonathan ... and more so if you consider that the
context of my words that Marc is quoting ... it was in upgrading 2.3.2
people to 2.3.4 where I never even consider Unix ... see my earlier post
where I cover this in greater depth ...

> >Well, he said that Xenix was appropriate for customers who had no
> >networking or security needs.  Modems are a form of networking, and as
> >you mention, they work fine.  But putting a modem on a computer and
> >leaving security turned off is just about as much of a security risk
> >as putting the root password in /etc/issue.
> 
> Define what you mean by "security", please.  SCO Unix has a C2 level of
> security, which gets in the way a lot of the time.  If you use proper 
> password controls Xenix will have as much security as many other versions
> of Unix that are in the field, and I am including much larger Unix
> installations in this statement.

You are quite correct here as well ...
Again, security was not a *primary* concern for most of our Xenix clients,
but that certainly does not mean they have NO security for their systems
accounts which are properly passworded are the best form of security, and
next in line comes the fact that not a single user ever gets
direct access to a shell ... (save the administrator) ... hows THAT for
security?

> Also, there is plenty of networking available for Xenix.  I have configured
> (not recently) a Xenix box to talk to a SCO Unix box as well as DOS
> boxes, all on the same network.

Correct.  My point was only that if networking was the *primary* issue that
I'd have considered Unix.  Actually, I said that if the client has *no*
networking or security issues, Xenix was the most likely candidate (if the
number of users was low enough) ... 

> >Your point being?  Or do you feel that I'm unqualified to participate
> >in this discussion, because I'm still in high school?
> 
> Just that you don't have has much experience as other professionals who
> have been working in the field for many years.  Sometimes it takes
> plain old experience to get exposure to many different environments.  It
> is a bit difficult to know and understand other environments without 
> actually using them.

Very good point, and I have already posted a similiar statement ...

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