Xenix vs. Unix?

[Karl Denninger]

In article <14 at nstar.UUCP> larry at nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
>In article <12 at dynasys.UUCP>, root at dynasys.UUCP (Super user) writes:
>> 1)  What is the difference between SCO Xenix and SCO Unix?  Or what is the
>
>I had been running both SCO 2.3.1 and Interactive 2.02 and it appears that
>I will be sticking with 386/ix.   SCO Xenix is their Xenix product which
>is less memory hungry and offers support for thousands of products that
>run under pure Xenix.  Xenix is not Unix binary compatible.  

Nonsense.

Xenix 2.3 runs all 80386 Unix COFF binaries that I have tried, including
those that use shared libraries.

For example, I have successfully run the Microport "vi" from their '386
release -- Xenix's reads /etc/termcap, and I wanted one that read terminfo.
So I loaded uport's -- it works fine.

Xenix also works with nearly everyone's tape drives.  386/ix works with
Wangtek only.  I could go on; the hardware support on 386/ix is "somewhat
lacking" IMHO.

>SCO Unix
>on the other hand will execute both Xenix and Unix binaries (likewise 386/ix)
>and cost more, but lacks a developers system (it currently still is not
>shipping) - while Interactive is shipping a complete product to support
>Unix V5 which will also execute Xenix binaries (I was running my Xenix
>Usenet binaries under 386/ix without problems and only recently recompiled
>the source code under the native compiler).

Unless you want to run 80286 Xenix binaries, in which case you may find out
there are a couple of nasty surprises -- like SGID/SUID things don't work
right.  This may be fixed now, but it was definately a problem with V2.01.

>If you are considering an OS - I would go with Interactive.  You should 
>look at their file system - it has to be the fastest in the industry.   

Unless you count SCO Unix 3.2's ACER/Counterpoint Fast File System
enhancement :-)  (We don't have benchmark numbers yet, but I bet it gives
386/ix a good run for the money).

Make sure you look at Interactive's support too -- in my experience (which 
is limited, I will admit) it's the worst in the industry.  A customer of ours
went against our recommendation and bought 386/ix -- and then had over eight
months of finger-pointing to deal with regarding disk controller/drive
compatibility problems.  He got "well, it's not supported" -- this with a
WD1006V controller (RLL 1:1 buffered).  Their installation software (!) was
badly broken and wouldn't accept defect lists properly.  Now that 2.0.2 is 
released, it appears to be fixed -- although they never admitted it was 
broken in the first place!

I won't buy 386/ix until they can demonstrate to us that it is working
right AND that they intend to support the product.  So far neither has been
the case.  If you put 386/ix into a commercial environment, from what we
have seen, you are asking for trouble.  It may be ok for the "hacker".

--
Karl Denninger (karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.		"Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"