'386 Unix Wars

[Sean Eric Fagan]

In article <1990Dec30.170614.22573 at ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>Correct.  Xenix is also damn solid.  

And small, and relatively fast.  (Some comments about this below.)  It's
simple, in many ways, and doesn't have as many features as 3.2.  But that
may be what you want.  In which case, I'd say go for xenix.

>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.

Well, some comments here.  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.  (Face it, you can get a
'386SX, some semi-decent display, a bit of ram and a smallish disk, for only
a little more than most X terminals.  Granted, the display size of the X
terminals is larger, but that isn't the only issue.)  Since that is the
case, having more than two users doesn't make sense for that configuration
(and, in fact, to get that price, it *needs* to be a two-user license).
Similarly, not everybody in your company, where you've just bought 100
copies of ODT, is going to program; most likely, you're going to have one or
two people doing the programming and support for everyone else.

>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!

It's going, it seems.  Various messages from the net alone say that the next
version of 3.2 from SCO will at least potentially be non-C2.  That is, you
will at least be able to completely disable the C2 stuff, if it isn't
shipped like that.

>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!

I agree with 3.2.0.  Note, however, that 3.2v2 is the latest release, and
that's what kithrup is running (do you think I would run something at home
that I didn't trust?).  Also, at work, we're using 3.2v2 in all of systems
engineering; that is, the machines we get mail on, and read news from, and
work on, are 3.2v2 (well, the development machines are often a strange
hybrid 8-)).  3.2v2 is fairly robust and stable.  kithrup has panic'ed
twice, once due to a badly written device driver (my own, unfortunately).
I am *happy* with 3.2v2, and I *like* it.  And, once again, this is stated
as someone who *uses* it, not as someone who produces it.

>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.  

Well... look at it another way.  Support personel are expensive.
Development people are expensive (as are all the people to back them up:
production, documentation, sales, managers, internal support, hardware
maintainance, etc.).  So... would you rather have to pay $8000 for a single
license, and get the support you want, or pay $1000, and get somewhat
limited support?  Note that people at SCO and ISC *do* read this group, and
some of them (us) are very protective towards their (our) respective
products.  While not everyone has access to usenet, it *is* something.
(I've also gotten email from people who had other people give them my name,
and I do try to help.  It's not my highest priority, but it is something I
pay attention to.)

I've been told that SCO has lots of its SLS's available for free (read about 
them in the monthly postings).  I am sure ISC does something similar, even 
if my biases do get in the way 8-).  The upgrade from 3.2.0 to 3.2v2 costs
money (unless you bought 3.2.0 after a certain date, if I remember
correctly); this is largely because 3.2v2 added lots of features, not just
fixing bugs.  In particular, 3.2v2 is *lots* faster in terms of filesystem
performance, and in other areas as well.  (It outperforms xenix in some
respects, now.)

>[bug fixing] 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".

For the most part, I agree.  However, if you are the only customer
experiencing this panic, and it is not readily reproducible, why should a
company spend thousands of dollars to fix it?  I know it sounds callous, but
money has to come from *somewhere*.  And, of course, see the comment about
SCO's SLS's above.

>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!

Agreed.  And, again, the 'support' part of it comes from the fact that
people, who get paid, are needed just to interface with you while describing
the problem.  Then they need to test it, and, if it behaves as indicated,
they then get back to you and say, 'Yep, it's a problem, we're putting an
engineer on it right now.'  Now, if it *is* a system-crashing problem, that
more than two or three people run into, it is probably worth it.  But what
if it *isn't* a problem?  That your hardware is what's causing it?  Are you
going to fork over the money that the company spent afterwards?  No?  Then
how do you expect the company to stay in business?  Work out the math
yourself; it's not that hard.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef at kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.