SCO doesn't sell UNIX

[Ronald S H Khoo]

tneff at bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
 
> With all due respect, I'm still wondering why the marketplace so
> desperately needs a fixed SCO UNIX in particular.

> why the @*&#$^ does
> anyone care *what* SCO does?  UNIX is a commodity: take your best deal.

The annoying thing is that there are some things that SCO does quite
well, like the support of a large range of hardware.  (Quick aside:
can any of the other unices support 4 ST-506 style interface discs
*and* a SCSI on an AHA1540 at the same time?  This is a *serious* question
which I'd like the answer to, please!)
And of course, if you absolutely need MS-DOS/OS-2 cross development,
they are the only game in town.

Also, it can be quite hard to persuade "the management" that the
"best buy of the century has changed".  "You told us SCO was the best
3 years ago, did you get it wrong then?" etc.

And what about hardware vendors who lock you in to SCO UNIX like
Altos and Compaq (for Compaq dual-processor systems).

You gotta admit that SCO unbreaking their UNIX would be helluva
convenient for loadsa guys.

Me, I'm gonna *have* to look at the competition.  I still happen to think
that their Xenix is just about the best UNIX you can get for 386 boxes.
Rock solid, stingy on core and disc (what System Vr3.2 compatible OS
can you think of that'll be *happy* in 2 Meg of core and 20 Meg of disc
and still have space left over for the users?) but their native 3.2
product is unuseable.  And no one in their right mind would depend on
Xenix in the future -- not even SCO know exactly how far they are going
to keep maintaining it!
-- 
ronald at robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)