HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: charles@gremlin.muug.mb.ca (Charles)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: ISC 2.2.1: Problems with login, mount and ping
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:26:33 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: The Haunted Unix Box

root@fns.gold.sub.org (Peter Bechtold) writes:

>In article <2946@bigfoot.first.gmd.de> aze@first.gmd.de (Andre' Zehl) writes:
>>I'm having three problems with my ISC 3.2.2.1
>[..]
>>2.) mount. (I guess there is nothing to be done to mount faster than
>>the standard mount does with S51K ?). My problem here is, that I
>>get the message:
>>	mount: warning <usr2> mounted as </home> 
>>Can I prevent this message? I've played with /etc/partitions but this
>>doesn't seem to help. 

[..]
>By default, ISC creates one usr FS, then asks you whether you wanna
>have a second one, and if so it labels it usr2.

>Even though, you can mount any filesystem to any place.

>So you don't have to care about that warning.

But if you want to get rid of it, see the man page for labelit.


Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:51:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.222549.9231@compu.com> fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>>SCO UNIX costs $1295. Where do I buy the same thing for $431 retail? That is
>>>1/3 the cost isn't it?
>
>>Ok Fred, what is IN that SCO Unix which you get for $1295?
>
>An operating system to run whatever application(s) the customer desires for as
>many users as he wishes. 

And works with more peripherals than any other product. Either supported 
directly by SCO or by the vendor with drivers for SCO (they do SCO first
they maybe do SVR4, then again maybe not).

You also get a much larger support staff than any of the other vendors
(check out PC Unix Buyers Guide).

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1246 biz.sco.general:5437 comp.unix.sys5.r3:342 comp.unix.sysv386:17876
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:24:33 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <2B5C2DA6.9A77@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
| I can't help but think that when a hacker is reduced to pushing a
| commercial UNIX -- ANY commercial UNIX -- instead of Linux or 386BSD,
| she may win the battle, but she will have lost the war.

  Time to realize that there is room for both commercial and free
software, and not try to use one solution to all problems. And I think
you know that and are just agitating...

  Some people like to hack the o/s and some like to do applications.
After a while you want a change, and want to DO something with your
system (I know people who's favorite app is kdb, they're sick).
Personally I've been on a team which wrote an o/s, designed and written
a multitask multiproc o/s by myself, and while I run Linux for fun, I
keep it as a porting target, not a way of life. I develop apps on a
commercial o/s, both for fun and professionally.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: 16550 support in SCO UNIX?
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:04:35 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1993Jan26.204805.135907@zeus.calpoly.edu>, cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (Christopher J. Ambler, Phish) writes:

| Question is, then, does there need to be software support for the 16550's
| enhancements? Does just plugging in the chip into the serial card not
| help?

  SCO UNIX has support for 16550, and you should see something about it
when you boot the system, in the description of the serial ports. Sorry,
I don't remember what, I'm running FAS for other reasons.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
	A terible poker player can have a great hand,
	A obnoxious fool can have a good idea.
	Both are winners, regardless of who has them.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1319 biz.sco.general:5553 comp.unix.sys5.r3:399 comp.unix.sysv386:17904
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:40:59 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1993Jan21.151903.12520@wavehh.hanse.de>, cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) writes:

| SPARC Classis can only run Solaris 2. That means, that most of
| the old Software will not run for a time (freeware espcially).

Which freeware did you have trouble recompiling? Or did you mean the old
binaries would not run in all cases (true)?
| 
| And note, that a SPARC 2 or SPARC classic is much slower than a
| 66MHz-486 on interger-operations.

Classic has SPECint of 26.1 and SPECfp of 21.0. Were you looking at
SPECint for a SPARCstation or something?

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
	A terible poker player can have a winning hand,
	A obnoxious fool can have a good idea.
	Both are winners, regardless of who has them.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: holder@telesoft.com (Robert L. Holder @ignite)
Subject: EISA on SCO
Keywords: EISA SCO
Organization: Alsys Group, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:26:49 GMT

Has anyone had any experience running SCO ODT 2.0 on EISA
computers? I am considering an AMI Enterprise  motherboard.
I notice the local clone store has both Enterprise (128 K cache)
and Enterprise III (256 K cache). Anyone have any preferences?

I am not sure whose ethernet or video to choose. I am familar
with all the ISA choices but not EISA. I would prefer not to
have to run ISA cards if possible. Can anyone offer a recommendation
here as well?

Thanks for any info!
From: v119matc@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Claus Schwinge)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Uh...I forgot...
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:54:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Any locations of where to ftp or mail info about pc-unix would also be greatly
appreciated.

-Claus
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1259 biz.sco.general:5455 comp.unix.sys5.r3:352 comp.unix.sysv386:17883
From: adams@pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de (Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:32:19
Organization: TH-Darmstadt
	<1993Jan20.154201.21194@crd.ge.com> <C188DI.EHE@ddsw1.mcs.com>
	<2B6010B6.14DF3@tct.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de
In-reply-to: chip@tct.com's message of Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:20:22 GMT

In article <2B6010B6.14DF3@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>   According to karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger):
>   >I suspect that the Intel Unix systems may be doomed.

>   Not a chance.  The NT, OS/2, and MS-DOS markets will continue to push
>   the PC clone architecture QUICKLY toward better bang/buck ratios.  Sun
>   can't amortize SPARC development costs like the PC clone makers can.

Why? Chip development was done by Cypress, Logitec, TI, NEC or Fujitsu
[unsure] etc., but outside of SUN. SUN told them just secifications.
Period.

Indeed SPARC processors do not tend to be more expensive than 486DXs,
 price driven by monopoly of Intel. Have a look at the
microSPARC by TI, which has a CPU, FPU and all glue logic,
including DRAM controller and SBUS interface, put on _ONE_ chip.

>   PC UNIX rides that wave of good and cheap hardware, 
Current cheap PC hardware does not seem to match current challenge 
very well. Why do you think do Local Bus etc occur concurrently
to GUIs?

>  and there's no
>   reason to think it won't continue to do so.
At least here in Europe, one can prove, that workstations based
on PC will be tremedously more expensive than one based on SPARC.
Please glance through ct12/92, ct1/93, ct2/93 and iX1/93
all published by Heisse Verlag, Hannover, FRG.

Do not forget, that clone makers start to focus on SPARC meanwhile.

Window NT is targeted to processors like Mips R3000/R4000 and
DEC/alpha. Next versions of OS/2 will be based on a mciro kernel,
and IBM sees OS/2 just as one step into distributed computing (DCE) 
and propose their PowerRisc therefor.

All arguments above need not be taken as arguments, though 
they are too many and too strong hints to ignore.

best, adams
From: marcio@ax.apc.org
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: ODI specification
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:20:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:ax:1163900009:000:113
Nf-From: ax.UUCP!marcio    Jan 21 18:20:00 1993


Does anybody knnownows bows nknows how to get Novell's ODI specifications ????
Tahhansks in Advance,
MArcio Lima
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:39:57 GMT

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan18.193031.971@compu.com> fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:

>>custome buys. He doesn't give a hoot about spending $200 more today, he
>>worries much more about running his business reliably tomorrow and being able
>>to call someone if something fails.

>Correct.  Nonetheless, $100 saved in direct costs you have to pass through
>is $100 your customer doesn't pay.

I believe the subject was upgrade cost. It was deemed to be more expensive 
than that of other vendors. Therefore the $200 which I mentioned.


>If the only reason you are $2200 more expensive is that you made a decision
>to use an operating system which is $2200 more expensive, and it doesn't
>bring tangible benefits worth that $2200, you deserve to lose.
>Every time.

Why not pick $10,000 or any other arbitrary number. NONE of our customers EVER 
buys a development system. They simply buy the basic run-time and I have no 
idea where a $2200 DIFFERENCE can be established for me to lose anything. 
EVER. Users and developers are different animals. Users simply wish to get 
their own work out. Developers worry about how that can be done most 
efficiently and then sell their expertise to users for a price. That's the way 
the market has worked since the first hunter sold his extra rabbit for some 
veggies his neighbor had.

It is called a system of resource maximization.


>My job as an independant is to evaluate the available materials and come up
>with the best possible solution.  That evaluation not only includes costs,
>but product stability and life-cycle costs.

I thought you worked for the videocart company doing whatever they do?


Fred
-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     "A man's library is a sort of 
26 Warren St.   home: fr@icdi10.compu.com 	harem" - Emerson (1860) 
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1280 comp.unix.sys5.r4:1378 comp.unix.sys5.r3:369 biz.sco.general:5498
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.sys5.r3,biz.sco.general
Subject: Re: The Future of ESIX (was Re: PC-clone UNIX Software Buyer's Guide)
Date: 23 Jan 93 15:21:19 GMT
Organization: CompuData Inc.

aad@siemens.com (Anthony Datri) writes:

>>>Lets say the average system has 30 users. The full list of the OS is $1295.

>Uh, 30 users?  Might not *1* be a more accurate figure?

No, that's only when you have lots of money to throw away on workstations. 
Most small businesses are not that fortunate and can only afford one computer. 
For their users they get terminals for $300 or $400.

Perhaps Siemens only sells workstations ala SUN and makes big bucks in the 
process like SUN, but that is not the world most of us travel in. Small 
business is still the biggest business around.

Fred
-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     "A man's library is a sort of 
26 Warren St.   home: fr@icdi10.compu.com 	harem" - Emerson (1860) 
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Texaco
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:49:01 GMT

In article <30564@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, dsiegel@optima.UUCP (Dave Siegel) writes:
|> From article <1993Jan26.153926.19840@texhrc.uucp>, by pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt):
|> 
|> 
|> > |> As DEC was able to build a binary compiler VAX executables to alpha,
|> > |> same should be possible for a less complex architecture like 386.
|> >                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
|> >  Have you actually written assembly code for both the VAX and the
|> > 8088 family?  The 80486 is not a less complex architecture than the VAX.
|> > Less powerful? debatable.  Less complex? no.  The 80486 instruction set
|> > is ridiculous.
|> 
|> He's not talking about VAX architecture, but AXP (Alpha) architecture.

I stand corrected, but what I said about the VAX vs 80x86 mostly holds true 
for the AXP vs 80x86. ( except that the less powerful part is no longer
debatable. )

(* stuff deleted *)


|> It certainly is possible, but as if different architectures at the hardware
|> level wasn't bad enough, different Operating Systems makes this even more
|> challenging.  At least in the case of DEC they designed OpenVMS to be as close
|> to VMS 5.4 (note:  not VMS 5.5, though it's got some 5.5 stuff in it) as 
|> possible so the process of writing a binary converter was a little simpler
|> than it might have otherwise been.

Good point.  Converting to/from 80x86 would be a nightmare.

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : pyeatt@texaco.com    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : (713) 975-4056       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:03:10 GMT

larry@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>They are keeping track of judgements and court activity on behalf of the
>county (they are in the county courthouse)

The state is Indiana. And can I check with 'any' county? Each county has a 200 
ESIX box doing child support work?


>>And how does this Equinox cluster controller look?  How did they hook 200
>>users onto their system.  I mean physically.

>boxes bolted on large pieces of plywook with a nest of wires (tie wrapped
>of course)..

Sounds like a real rube-goldberg setup and not very professional.

Fred
-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     "A man's library is a sort of 
26 Warren St.   home: fr@icdi10.compu.com 	harem" - Emerson (1860) 
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:35:18 GMT

kevin@shady.UUCP (Kevin Smith) writes:

>to set it up at the customer.  Or...  Fred can sell SCO for list with setup
>included.  Better yet, Fred can sell it for list and charge for setup and
>have a nice car and a nice house.  Hmmm...

Hey, you weren't supposed to figure that out so quickly. :-) 



>On another note, this bickering over price is simply not important to a lot
>of the people who buy and use these systems.  A customer of mine recently
>replaced their ageing NCR Towers with SCO based 486 systems.  The price of
>the UNIX was totaly lost in the hardware costs (computers, terminals,
>printers...) and licensing and upgrade fees for their applications.  In
>fact, it came to about 3%.

Precisely. This is why I keep saying the extra couple hundred disappear in the 
travel and installation charges. There are other much more expensive items 
that the customer needs to worry about and one of those is to make sure he's 
running every day. The cost of being down for a day or two with 30 idle people can 
be as much as a whole computer system. If the business loses business it can 
be disastrous. The cost of the OS really is not even worth arguing about.


Fred
-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     "A man's library is a sort of 
26 Warren St.   home: fr@icdi10.compu.com 	harem" - Emerson (1860) 
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1373 biz.sco.general:5670 comp.unix.sys5.r3:445
From: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:24:13 GMT
Organization: Helen Keller Bondurant's Performance Driving School for the Blind

In article <C15LJv.8wI@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>When was the last time any of you folks out there actually got a compiler
>bug fixed in, oh, say, SCO's compilers?  I remember bitching about ...

To be fair, Version 4.0 did fix the predefine breakage in cpp.  (In 
3.2R2, the predefines i386, M_UNIX, and M_I386 ended up *not* being defined
when rcc was used, which gave you some *nasty* misuses in certain include
files).  Given their (and Sean Fagan's) insistence that this was not a bug
in the first place, I was a little surprised to see it working in 4.0.  I 
haven't tried 4.1; maybe it's broken again.  O-:

>Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)

--
Alan Denney      aland@informix.com      {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland

Elvis: shot a TV when bored.  Amish Elvis:  beat a book with a stick when bored.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1372 biz.sco.general:5666 comp.unix.sys5.r3:443
From: mjo@iao.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:40:24 GMT
Organization: Not an official spokesperson for Ford Motor Company
Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost

In article <C1JDsr.1oM@wimsey.bc.ca> sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:

:Certainly not. Dell has no where near the features that SCO has. Think
:in terms of support, availability through sales channels, peripheral
:support, applications, third party products, user training, sales training,
:marketing support, ...... 

It can be argued that these are not "features" of the OS per se --
this seems more of a comparison of Dell, Inc. vs. SCO, Inc.  One of
the factors missing in your equation is that the support models and
targetted customers are somewhat different (but converging).  Dell is
certainly much less "alone" with SVR4 than SCO is with SCO.

						...Mike

-- 
 Michael J. O'Connor           |  Internet:  mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
 Ford Motor Company, OPEO      |  UUCP:      ...!fmsrl7!opeo!mjo
 20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001   |  Phone:     +1 (313) 248-1260
 Dearborn, MI  48121           |  Fax:       +1 (313) 323-6277
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1394 comp.unix.sys5.r3:459
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:55:39 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Originator: news@auspex-gw.Auspex.COM

>Or are
>third-party serial boards a thriving market in the Land of SPARCs and
>I haven't heard about it?

Dunno about "thriving", but there *are* third-party serial cards, as I
remember, for SBus.

I suspect they may be more expensive than ISA bus cards, though (dunno
about other PC buses).
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: No EISA support SVR4.2
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:55:24 GMT

In article <2B6221EB.123E@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>According to every Univel compatability list I've seen (including ones
>produced before its release), support for EISA host adapters is
>explicitly provided for UNIX V4.2 --- *by the vendor of the host board*.
[...]
>This has worked for years with the makers of intelligent serial boards.
>You don't buy anyone's UNIX expecting it to have built-in drivers for
>Digiboards or Equinox. IMO, in the interest of keeping bloat to a
>minimum, basic UNIX should come with a minimum of hardware drivers
>and let the rest ship with the peripherals.

There's a difference between drivers for your primary SCSI adapter and
a serial board.  Not many people try to boot up from their serial
board or perform the initial load of the operating system from a
tape drive connected to it.   If the board in question isn't supported
by the unix vendor, how are you supposed to get a system running so
that you can install the driver supplied by the vendor of the board?
Ataptec and Ultrastor have compatibility modes, but what about
the others?

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us
From: kevin@shady.UUCP (Kevin Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: SCO Unix 3.2 Urgent Help
Keywords: help
Date: 25 Jan 93 03:17:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ShadeTree Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan22.202824.2512@netsys.com> you write:
:>
:> I have to install someone's tcp/ip runtime package for them and the media is 3.5 inch.
:> The problem seems to be making sysadmsh use the 3.5 inch drive, which is drive 1 on the
:> system. Drive 0 is 5.25 .. I can locate no way to make the software install use drive 1
:> instead of drive 0.
:>
:> If you can assist, please send mail or call 800-227-6288 and ask for me.
:>
:> Thanks.
:>
:> Len
:>

Sysadmsh runs custom.  You can run this directly.

custom -m /dev/rfd1135ds18

will work for 1.44mb (rfd1135ds9 for 720k).
-- 
	    | Email - !shady!kevin uunet!shady!kevin kevin%shady@uunet.uu.net
Kevin Smith | Voice - (+1) (908) 874-7980
	    | Mail  - ShadeTree Software, Inc., 192 Capricorn Dr. #10,
	    |         Somerville, NJ  08876, USA
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:02:04 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan26.222549.9231@compu.com> fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>>SCO UNIX costs $1295. Where do I buy the same thing for $431 retail? That is
>>>1/3 the cost isn't it?
>
>>Ok Fred, what is IN that SCO Unix which you get for $1295?
>
>An operating system to run whatever application(s) the customer desires for as
>many users as he wishes. 
>
>He is not interested in all the neat toys that a Larry or a Karl want to play
>with as developers. 
>
>As was pointed out there is no product on the market that can do the same for 
>1/3 the cost. The user also has the option to upgrade to an MPX environment as 
>his need requires so that he can add even more users. It should be pointed out 
>there is no other product that provides the same option.

Of course, MPX has it's own interesting problems.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1351 biz.sco.general:5611 comp.unix.sys5.r3:423 comp.unix.sysv386:17918