'386 Unix Wars

[Ronald S H Khoo]

sef at kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

> First of all, ODT is being targeted as a
> workstation, but not completely.  A desktop X machine, with local
> processing, I guess is what you would call it.

What's wrong with using Xenix for this, other than the outrageous
"extra" cost of Streams in order to be able to buy TCP for it ? Other
than "No NFS" I suppose.  Hrrmph.  The *only* piece of functionality
that you don't get from Xenix.  And that's a *marketing* decision isn't
it ? With all the mention of FFS in the various bits of Xenix TCP
documentation, it can't be that most of the work to put it in hasn't
been done ? Not that it's a particularly difficult hack anyway,
compared to some of the SYSV->Xenix hacks SCO have already done,
it seems (looking from the sidelines :-)

> Granted, the display size of the X
> terminals is larger, but that isn't the only issue.)

aww, 16" SVGA/8514 screens for PCs aren't *that* expensive anymore.
Especially not if you only want monochrome.
I could live with non-interlaced 1024x768 16" mono...

H'm.  When the free X for Xenix patches come out next month (cross
fingers) maybe that'll be an incentive to swap back to Xenix ...

> I am *happy* with 3.2v2, and I *like* it.  And, once again, this is stated
> as someone who *uses* it,

OK Sean, I believe that, but have you considered how much happier you might
be running SVR4 instead ?  Hey, that's a *good* idea......

-- 
ronald at robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)