Xenix *is* Unix (WAS Re: ^3 What ....... Dell UNIX V.4)

[Wm E. Davidsen Jr]

In article <1990Nov23.184635.2568 at nstar.rn.com> larry at nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

| I disagree.  Xenix is good for installations with limited resources 
| (286, 386sx or 16 mhz 386 with a couple megs of ram and MFM or RLL
| drives and dumb ports) - but for someone who wants a hot performer
| Xenix is not the way to go.

  In what way is needing fewer resources a drawback? We run a lot of
systems at work, and about the half are Xenix. They low end is 8MB
386-25, so I don't think we really lack resources.

| For someone with the hardware - real Unix (not SCO) is the way to go.

  I what way is SCO UNIX "unreal?" Is this some secret flaw SCO has been
hiding? I'd like to know what I missed when I evaluated V.3 versions.

| Xenix was the only answer a couple of years ago - but not in the 90's.

  True, but that doesn't mean it's not still one valid answer. Xenix
(and SCO UNIX) still offer support for more hardware and software than
other vendors, good reliability, online manuals, etc. That doesn't make
them a perfect fit for everything, but I don't see anything which
disqualifies them, or anything which so clearly beats them in every case
that I would pass on evaluating them.
-- 
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