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: 1 Sep 92 13:26:20 GMT
Organization: SOFTWARE / DYNAMIX
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA02069; Tue, 1 Sep 92 07:23:26 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA22406; Tue, 1 Sep 92 07:22:49 -0700
X-Received: from dynamix.UUCP by uu3.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)id AA23692; Tue, 1 Sep 92 10:21:42 -0400
X-Received: by dynamix.com (smail2.5c)id AA25628; 1 Sep 92 09:26:20 EDT (Tue)
X-To: comp.unix.xenix.sco.usenet (comp.unix.xenix.sco)
X-In-Reply-To: <BtsG0n.50u@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>; from "Marc Unangst" at Aug 30, 92 8:38 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

[warning: this post is *not* grammatically correct, nor is it punctuated
correctly, so if thats your primary concern please press 'n' now]

> Well, that's good advice even if Xenix is going to be supported
> forever.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this -- especially in the SCO
> Xenix newsgroup -- but I don't think Xenix is an appropriate product
> for new installations anymore.  

well you've shown your ignorance about SCO products right there ...      
Xenix is a obviously a SUPERIOR product for small multiuser systems ... 
anyone who's done BOTH Xenix and Unix already knows that, but what about
you?  have you ever even done a Xenix system?  ever used one?  installed
one?  what is your basis for the above statement?   what is your experience
with SCO products?  just how many Unix/Xenix systems have you put out?
are you even an authorized SCO reseller???    (perhaps you came to
this newsgroup, like so many others do on the net, trying to start flame
wars and counter-productive arguments, as you've already demonstrated in
direct email to myself --- well stop wasting our time with this sh*t)
for the benefit of ppl out there without a lot of SCO Unix/Xenix
experience, I'll rebut some of your statements ...

>                                SCO should definitely keep supporting
> its existing customers through bugfixes and new (bugfix) releases, but
> I don't think SCO should expend any effort adding new features to
> Xenix, and I don't think SCO resellers should recommend Xenix as a
> solution to customers who don't already have an installed base of
> Xenix machines.  People who are already on Xenix should not be forced
> to move to Unix, but they should be gently encouraged to make the leap
> at an appropriate time.  For example, when they're considering an
> upgrade from Xenix 2.3.2 to Xenix 2.3.4; or when they're considering
> getting a new hard drive.

I've upgraded plenty of 2.3.2 sites to 2.3.4 and never even considered
Unix, and I know for a FACT that a LOT of very experienced and
knowledgeable folks in this group (and locally) that have done the same ... 
perhaps these guys know something you don't?  
like perhaps, Xenix works better for small installations?  
or, perhaps YOU know something that ALL OF US do not ...
well here's your chance to show us all the light ... I'm challenging you,
if you want to be taken seriously, how about giving us FACTS ... 
tell us about your vast experiences with SCO products ... show us the facts
about why Unix is better than Xenix for all circumstances ...

> Face it, folks.  The world is moving towards POSIX and other standards

well I don't know what world YOU live in, but here in Syracuse New York
that statement looks pretty damn silly ... my clients don't much care what
government and research institutions are using Unix for and what all those
Unix vendors are (dis)agreeing on (amongst themselves) ... they want a
solution that just flat out works, and THATS Xenix, the most mature and
stable product available today ... I won't even mention here that anyone
with any significant amount of knowledge about the industry KNOWS that
these damn Unix vendors can't agree on ANYTHING and NO standards are a sure
thing ... so your "lets all follow the standards blindly" argument bites
the dust here ...

> more every day.  With this in mind, it just doesn't make sense to
> choose a bastardized SVR3-wannabe for new installations.  The falling

again, you show here how little you know about Xenix ... 

> price of hardware has made all but irrelevant the consideration that
> Xenix runs in less RAM and takes less CPU horsepower than Unix.  Xenix
> no longer has any real reason to exist, except for the people that
> have an existing Xenix installation.

right, and the fact that Xenix CONSISTENTLY OUTPERFORMS the bulky, slow,
overgrown SVR4 kernel is meaningless ... and if the client is NEVER
going to even consider networking or communications, and has NO security
needs whatsoever, and NO needs for compatibility with the rest of the Unix
world, or the host of other things that SVR4 provides whether you
want/need them or not, they should STILL waste their money on more
hardware horsepower, because, well, hey the whole world is going that way
(and because Marc Unangst says so)

> (Naturally, my views do not represent those of my employer, his

speaking of your employer Marc ... tell us, what is it you do for a living?
are you out there every day installing and supporting Unix & Xenix systems?
someone posting this sort of rubbish to the entire net-world should be
prepared to back it up with something more than misguided opinion ... 
so how about it?  take me up on my challenge, lets go head to head WITH THE
FACTS ... 

> sister, or his sister's dog.  Copywrong 1992.  All rights reversed.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                 interesting choice of wording here ...


#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
#          David L. Jarvis                 SOFTWARE  /                 #
#          david@dynamix.com                       /  DYNAMIX          #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco