From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:19:03 GMT

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

>In article <1993Jan27.152657.11295@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
	shane@cs.sunysb.edu (Shane Bouslough) writes:

>>[...SCO is a *subset* of Dell...]

>Certainly not. Dell has no where near the features that SCO has.

This is getting just a bit too polarized for my tastes.
I think you're both wrong.

1) SCO is not a subset of Dell.

It would not take very long to find a good many features of SCO and
support elements that are a part of its UNIX that are not in Dell.
CD-ROM support. C2 security. Support for more obscure peripherals than
R4 (and a large amount more support for third-party peripherals from SCO
than from Dell). Available support for LAN Manager and Novell protocols.
The Microsoft compiler, love it or hate it, offers cross-compilation
abilities that rcc lacks.

The point I'm making here is not to get into a "my features are better
than your features", but that there are *different* features, and (like
it or not) some parts of SCO that just ain't in most R4s.

2) By sheer count, I'd say that Dell easily holds its own with SCO when
   it comes to features.

Comparing base package to base package, the immediate availability of TCP,
NFS and Merge in Dell has got to be a plus.  It runs Xenix *and* SCO UNIX
*and* ELF binaries. It offers both Open Look and Motif, dynamic
libraries, a whole pile of printer protocol filters, troff, better BSD
support, and a pile of othjer stuff not in SCO.

The point I'm making here is not to get into a "my features are better
than your features", but that there are *different* features, and (like
it or not) some parts of R4 that just ain't in SCO.

I look at it this way; SCO and USL have much more in common than they
have distinct. They resemble each other far more than either resembles
OS/2 or VMS. While I have my preferences, I choose not to make them
dogmatic, as have plenty of people here on both sides of the spectrum.

I consider Stuart's marketing bumfum no less irritating than Larry's
blind boosterism. Neither has added much light to the situation.

This ain't a war, folks. And frankly, if there was, I'd say it was more
like SCO *and* USL against Microsoft than between each other.

The infighting is helping nobody. Neither USL or SCO is going away. So
why not work on celebrating the smilarities, and have some healthy and
clean competition on features -- of which *both* products have plenty.

>Think in terms of support,

I'd say this was a tossup. Both are good at support and care for
bugfixes in their base products.

Besides, if the product works, it shouldn't need support, right?

>availability through sales channels,

This is a bug as much as a feature, depending on your experience. There
are tons of know-nothing charlatans out there selling SCO, and the
authorization procedure didn't stop them one bit. Being available
through sales channels isn't much of a feature if you bought your
product from a "VAR" who dumped product in your lap and buggered off.

People who have really done their own shopping might like the approach
of direct marketing --- and, no question, Dell wrote the book on direct
marketing of computer wares. Their effort to build a VAR channel is
pitiful, but I expect that from a company that's made a reputation by
cutting out the middleman.

A really good reseller/VAR will be much better than a voice at the other
end of an impersonal 800 phone line. But that phone line is still better
than a *bad* reseller (and there are still tons around).

>peripheral support,

As I've dealt with in another thread, yes, there is a gap between SCO
and R4, which I'll admit may be a selling point. But that gap is
narrowing.

>applications,

A non-issue. Both can run the same binaries, and most ISVs are smart
enough to produce code that works on both systems.

The GUI issue is again skewing things a bit, but I expect that to be
resolved too.

>user training, sales training, marketing support, ...... 

Since, as I said, Dell is not interested in the channel, this isn't
quite a fair comparsion. These are features for the VAR, features which
Dell explicitly shies away from.

If you want to talk about Univel, on the other hand, that's a totally
different story. Having dealt with SCO, Dell, ESIX, and Microport,
I'd say that none of them holds a candle to Univel as far as reseller
support goes. Not bad for a startup, but that alone is far from enough
to make UnixWare a winning product.

>If you *want* SVR4 buy Dell. If you don't need SVR4 then SCO has a much
>better product for most business users.

I've used both heavily, and I'm convinced that blanket statements like
the above are full of crap. I don't think Stuart knows R4 well enough,
just like I think Larry doesn't know SCO enough, to be bashing the other
stuff so gratuitously.

Both have their place. In an increasing number of situations it's a
tossup, where either will do the job and the rest is just religion.

This is indeed starting to sound like car racing enthusiasts arguing
Fords versus Chevys. Which, in its own bizarre way, is not such a bad
thing, I guess.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
What's with all this multimedia stuff? Most vendors can't get *one* done right.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1363 biz.sco.general:5653 comp.unix.sys5.r3:437 comp.unix.sysv386:17926