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: 2 Sep 92 21:28:22 GMT
Organization: SOFTWARE / DYNAMIX
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07271; Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:45:08 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA17047; Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:45:06 -0700
X-Received: from dynamix.UUCP by uu3.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)id AA03142; Wed, 2 Sep 92 17:43:28 -0400
X-Received: by dynamix.com (smail2.5c)id AA01634; 2 Sep 92 17:28:23 EDT (Wed)
X-To: comp.unix.xenix.sco.usenet (comp.unix.xenix.sco)
X-In-Reply-To: <Btuuzv.Btx@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>; from "Marc Unangst" at Aug 31, 92 3:57 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

[Warning!  this is yet another post from that syntactically incorrect
rogue david jarvis ... so here's your chance to press 'n']   
 
> In article <1188@consult.UUCP> bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP ) writes:
> >Many new installations (no Unix/Xenix in place) are non-technical users
> >and DO NOT require POSIX and the other "lack of standards".  And
> 
> They may not need them now, but what do you tell your client when they
> want to run an iBCS2 app on their Xenix system?  Standards are good
> for you.  Xenix has a place; its place is the same niche that other
> vertical-market OSes like QNX have.

Well Marc ... since you're so fond of using those buzzwords like "POSIX"
and "iBCS2" ... how about giving us YOUR definition of those terms?
Specifically, what are you using iBCS2 to mean in your paragraph above???
(granted I am not an expert on this experiment-in-futility called "Unix
Standards", and therefore freely admit that I could be missing something)
I've come to understand the iBCS2 as being specifications for binary
compatibility for Intel processors, *NOT* a blanket guarantee of
application compatibility among *nix implementations.  That is, just
because a compiled binary conforms to iBCS2 doesn't mean that an entire
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.
iBCS2 is more for developers than end-users.  If I want to develop a
product for 5 *nix implementations I don't have to recompile 5 times, but I
*do* have to make provisions or even different versions for them.
If you're saying that all (or a majority of) the apps to come into the 
*nix market in the future will be iBCS2 but they won't support 
(or have versions for) Xenix, how about giving us some real information
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) 

> >they definitely do not need any additional overhead, requirements,
> >of sysadmin woos.  SCO Xenix for many installations has been and
> >continues to be a very good answer.  It is very stable, requires very
> >little onsite technical experience, and just flat runs, and runs....
>
> It's been my experience that SCO Unix just runs and runs and runs,

This much I agree with completely, and is quite irrelevant in the current
context.  (I'm sure Bob and the others will agree)

> too.  And SCO Unix has better support from third-party vendors, is

Depends on what your getting from the third party.  Networking products -
I'd tend to agree.  Intelligent serial i/o boards - definitely false.
Every major manufacturer of intelligent serial i/o products provides
drivers for Xenix.  Tape drives - again, definitely false.  Every major
tape drive and software vendor I've ever seen supported Xenix.  
Uninterruptible power supplies - no way, just talk to APC, the major player
in the intelligent ups market.
So here we go again Marc, I ask you to back up your claims with some real
FACTS.  What third-party products/vendors are you referring to above?

> cleaner, and is easier to administer than Xenix is.

Cleaner?
Xenix is the absolute most mature and stable product on the *nix market.  
What exactly do you mean by "clean"?  
Easier to administer?
How many Xenix systems have you administered or are you currently
administering?  How many *different* Unix systems?
How about some facts to backup these insane claims?

> -- 
> 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."

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.

#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
#          David L. Jarvis                 SOFTWARE  /                 #
#          david@dynamix.com                       /  DYNAMIX          #
#                                                                      #
#  Real men don't try to tell the world what a real man does.          #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------#