'386 Unix Wars

[Wm E. Davidsen Jr]

In article <18842 at rpp386.cactus.org> jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:

| I've used SCO Xenix on this machine (a 386) for 3 1/2 years, and it works
| very well.  The original purpose for this system was to develop business
| software for clients who would eventually be running SCO Xenix.
| 
| For clients with no on-site technical experience, SCO Xenix is probably
| your best bet.  It's sad that SCO UNIX is in such a sorry state.  There
| are no "industrial strength" UNIX ports out there, and I was hoping at
| least SCO would have something with all the newer features.

  I hate to agree that this is the state, but having tried a number of
the 3.2 flavors, I'm convinced that if you don't need some feature which
is in 3.2 which is not in Xenix, and NFS is the only one which comes to
mind, your reliability will be better with Xenix than and 3.2 I've
tried.

  I will also note that as a group the V.4 ports seem far less prone to
actual crashes (kernel panic) than any 3.2 port. They are all very rough
in lots of ways, but that's not one of them.

  This is my view of where 386 desktop unix is going, the new versions
are cheap and solid, and the low cost of memory takes the curse off the
larger size of the kernel.

  New products and market directions may cause this prediction to be
wrong, but at the moment that's the way it looks to me, from a
prospective going back to V7.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen at sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me