Taking risks on software (ISC)
John L. Grzesiak
jlg at odicon.UUCP
Sun Dec 3 05:35:49 AEST 1989
In article <[25711bb0:160.7]comp.unix.i386;1 at nstar.UUCP>, akcs.larry at nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
> >problems with any NEW product. ISC has a very solid product on the market,
> >yet we must expect problems as the product continues to evolve. If you
>
> I would disagree. ISC's product does not work as advertised and with the
> poor documentation I consider it not even in the running in it's current
> stage. I have suggested that my users invest in a real product such as
> SCO 3.2 - since I know they will get support from real people with a
> professional attitude.
Wow , some people do continue to live in a vacuum.
While I do agree that Interactive has not chosen to spend an inordinate
amount of time and money in documantation, and that SCO 's is head and
shoulders above Interactive in this respect, this is the limit of my
agreement. After having used early I.S.C. (pre 386) and being fairly
satisfied, I was persuaded to try SCO Xenix. I was impressed by their
beautifull full page adds and the impression they had made of certain
stodgy elements in the company I worked for at the time.
Early experience with SCO was exciting (pre 3.2 annoucement or commitment),
SCO really HAD a technical support department, my questions were reasonbly
answered (both expedient and technically accurate), however after the
announcement of 3.2 the world had changed, no longer was the SCO experience
a pleasant one, for SCO adopted the policy of non-support for XENIX, that
UNIX 3.2 was the wave of the future and SCO was going to promote that wave
by removing almost ALL of it's engineering from XENIX and accelerating the
port of their 3.2 UNIX. In addition , I feel SCO rushed a very immature 3.2
to market, for there are some major problems with it. All SCO did was the
major work with almost NO attention to details (Example: a dd command that
fails to write the last track of a DS/HD 5 1/4 floppy) This is NOT an obscure
bug. It does not belong in a production operating system. Add to that, a very
poor and untested SCSI driver, non-function parallel printing (it works - just
barely..) ... and you get a very BAD taste in your mouth , when you expected
a production operating system. Interactive on the other hand, while not a
system for a novice (Due to poor documantation) is absolutely no problem
for experienced UNIX users and administrators and for any user that was
willing to learn UNIX as a generic product with the many fine books
written and readily available at local bookstores. Add to that, with the
notable exception of problems in 2.02 NFS , the 2.02 product is a very
solid and stable product. To their credit Interactive focused on details
of providing solid, first time functionality. They were NOT willing to
release a half cooked OS and fix it on the fly. And yes , even Interactive
has bugs that they were'nt aware of , but this was not due to any rush on
Interactive's part to get the product to market. On a lighter note there
are differences in the two products that extend beyond the above. SCO has
done a fairly neat job of automating the System Administrators package, with
the only disadvantage that is visible, is that it is inflexible to those
of us who prefer manual Administration. And Interactive's Admin is fairly
standard AT&T (ala 3BX flavor).
Before this posting become a completely pro-Interactive anti-SCO monolouge
let me state that I have had good experiences (at different times) with
both companies, and I have also been unsatisfied (at different times) with
both companies and neither company has show any particular unique ability
to satisfy all customer problems. The bottom line of what I am saying is
that Interactive has solved many of it's internal problems with support
in addition to having a very mature UNIX product. SCO , while having a
very stable XENIX product is not yet ready to be a UNIX player and they
have a LOT to learn about the feelings of Corporations and Consultants
who base their futures on the best that can be found. In my opinion SCO
has betrayed my faith in their XENIX product and has undermined my future
by not supporting a product that they claimed they would continue to
support. They have left me high and dry in my work today to pursue future
sales and $$$$. ANY company who's present is not at least as important as
it's future does not merit serious consideration.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
* John Grzesiak @ Omega Dynamics : Specializing in UNIX/XENIX *
* Meriden Ct USA : Consulting . . . *
* jlg at odicon or spock!odicon!jlg : gaboon!odicon!jlg *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
More information about the Comp.unix.i386
mailing list