'386 Unix Wars

[Karl Denninger]

In article <277bb1de-8ae.1comp.unix.i386-1 at point.UUCP> carson at point.UUCP (Carson Wilson) writes:
>I am disappointed that NOBODY has dared to comment publicly on my post 
>about "'386 Unix Wars."  However, I did receive quite a bit of private 
>mail in response to my message.  Most of the respondents expressed a 
>desire to remain anonymous. I suppose I should have expected this.  
>Anyone qualified to give an educated opinion on the various brands of 
>i386/i486 Unix available most likely has already invested large amounts 
>of cash in one package or another, and the support staffs of SCO and 
>Interactive both monitor this network.

Well, that's what you should have expected with the way you phrased your
question and the subject of your posting!

>Nonetheless, below are excerpts from the private mail I've received so 
>far, edited for anonymity.  Hopefully they will spur others to add to 
>the discussion.  I haven't invested in an operating system yet, so 
>perhaps I'm in the unique position of being able to post my opinions 
>publicly.  So far my impression is that ISC emphasizes technical 
>excellence above all else (making developers happy, but alienating end 
>users) while SCO emphasizes marketing above all else (making end users 
>and retailers happy, but alienating developers).

Actually, there are a few other differences.  I'll comment as I go.

>*** Response #1: *************
> 
>For whatever it's worth.... my comments. I work at SCO.
> 
>> 1) Relative merits of Xenix vs. Unix.
>XENIX is SVID and SVVS compliant pretty much.  It has no NFS, no
>FFS, no FSS (i.e., can only mount XENIX file systems), no CDROM
>support, limited support for shared memory.  It's cheap, small, and
>mature code (The new 2.3.4 version has ksh, fast SCSI and some
>other benefits).  It will be supported indefinitely.  If you believe
>that real standards are de facto, then XENIX wins hands down over
>all others.  (over 250,000 sold).

Correct.  Xenix is also damn solid.  As for "limited support of shared
memory" don't tell that to any of my SVID-style applications which use it
VERY heavily without trouble!

Older versions were prone to panicking when heavy use was made of S5 IPC
features; 2.3.2 and beyond should be ok (2.3.2 is known to be ok here).

>> 2) Experiences of end users with SCO, Interactive, and other firms.
>I've only used SCO.  The current SCO UNIX 3.2 version 2 is pretty solid
>and fast.  Quite a few peripherals are supported, and it's backward 
>compatible for XENIX apps.  The best buy is Open Desktop, runtime at $995
>list. 

NO!

Open Desktop has a few (actually, several) problems:

1) It's "open" about the same way that Sun's Openwindows is -- that is,
   a window manager with an X environment which others can write to IF 
   they want to.  It's definately not MOTIF!

   Ask about something like Framemaker for ODT -- then try to run that copy
   on someone else's X server, such as ISC's or Dell's.  Good luck!

Also, that $995 is somewhat of a loss leader.  Expect to spend another $1000
on a development system (which anyone will need if they want to program) and
another $1000 by the time you get everything else you might want (like a NFS
server, etc).  Also, that $995 is a single-user (perhaps actually two user), 
single-workstation license.

Their "C2" security, which can't be turned completely off, will frustrate
you to no end.  Forget about doing things "your way" -- you get to do it
"the secure way".  C2 could easily be SCO's biggest mistake in 10 years.
The concept is good -- the mandatory nature of it bites!

>>this topic far more actively while we still have a chance to determine the 
>> direction desktop Unix will take.  If we allow market forces alone to 
>> decide which standards succeed, we may be disappointed in the long run.
> 
>SCO has been successful at listening.  We dont really do much else except
>shoot ourselfs in the foot occasionally (as with C2).
> 
>*** Response #2: *************
> 
>My reading of the situation is that if you are looking for a
>production platform, SCO is more stable and better
>supported.  If you want an OS that is "just like my 3B2,"
>you'll prefer Interactive.

Note that SCO also has had trouble with stability with their Unix 3.2.  I
have a customer who had HORRIBLE problems with 3.2.0, and it took him months
to get SCO to listen to him at all!

>Some of SCO's value added features are of debatable value --
>see the ongoing discussion of C2-like security -- but the
>point is that SCO is commited to enhancing and supporting
>the System V OS.

System V is a specification of features and functionality.  When you remove
some of that by adding something like C2 which you can't disable, it isn't
really System 5 anymore!

>*** Response #3: *************
> 
>My main recommendation is to stay away from Interactive Systems Corp.
>They have arguably the worst technical support I have ever seen (and
>I've seen some bad support operations over the years).  Not only are
>they unlikely to help you with your problem, they are likely to be
>very rude while they do so.  There have been countless horror stories
>here of the form, ``I called ISC with problem XYZZY, they said they
>would work on it, my thirty days of free support are over with no fix
>yet and when I call them they say my thirty days are up and I'll have
>to buy a support contract.''  Then they usually hang up immediately.

SCO has done the same kind of thing.  BOTH companies seem to feel that you
have no right of expectation to a bug-free product, or one which conforms to
the appropriate documentation and standards in the industry -- unless you
buy a nice expensive support contract.  

Welcome to the world of Desktop Unix.  The entry price is $1499; please fork
up an additional $900 per year to make sure it works once you have given us
our money.  

>As for SCO, it is a decent product, and we have found their technical
>support to be excellent.  (We are a distributor, or some such, as an
>end-user your mileage may vary.)  

As an end user SCO has the same problem that ISC has.  Fork up the cash or
forget about BUG FIXES.

Folks, support and bug fixes are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

Asking how to add an account is support.
Getting a fix for a persistant PANIC problem is a BUG FIX.

The first companies should and do charge for.

The second is something I should be able to get for free, since I paid for a
WORKING package, not "15 diskettes with whatever happens to be on them".

>Oh yes, you asked about Xenix.  Xenix seems to be a thing of the past.
>SCO keeps threatening to drop support for it.  Then the existing users
>complain and SCO promises they won't do that as long as customers who
>want to continue using it exist in sizable numbers.  Nonetheless, it
>now seems pretty low on the support food chain (i.e. it is the last to
>get the latest enhancements) and the chances of being orphanned in the
>next few years probably rule it out.  Xenix was THE system for 286
>boxes.  I think its time has passed.  (I also suspect a similar result
>for V.3, but that will probably take some years.)

Of course Xenix is low on the food chain - it doesn't need to be fed!

Xenix has ONE big advantage -- it works, and is ROCK solid.  I would still
recommend it for business use, as you know what you have to spend up front.
Now, if you need solid TCP/IP, any form of NFS, or a few other things then
it's no longer a viable option.  For those who want a single-station system
with lots of terminals plugged in, it's still (and has been for a couple of
years) a winner.

>*** Response #4: *************
>...
>Support from the vendor (for the retailer) is important, and ISC has 
>definitely been taking hits for that lately.  They are under a lot of fire 
>over their new (4-5 months) policy of charging an additional fee for 
>support to vendors of their products.  News flash -- SCO ALWAYS did this!
>...

Correct.  SCO has always charged their dealers for support.   So has ISC.
As they well should -- anyone who can't read the documentation needs to be
hit in the wallet for "babysitting".

However, system-crashing problems are another matter entirely, and one that
vendors have addressed in the same was as "support".  They ARE NOT THE SAME
ISSUE!

'Nuff said.  I still like ISC despite the problems with getting help.  2.2
is a pretty solid release, with a relatively short exception list.

--
Karl Denninger (karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.   "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"