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

[wolf paul]

In article <1990Nov23.184635.2568 at nstar.rn.com> larry at nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>ronald at robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes:
>
>>> No way will I go with Xenix.  I need real Unix.
>
>>are not helpful.  Xenix *is* a real Unix, in many ways more real than
>>most System V releases prior to 3.2.  At least the V7 stuff didn't get
>
>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.

Your statement above has NO BEARING on the question of whether Xenix
is real UNIX or not.

"Hot Performance" is not a criterion for judging whether an OS is
"real UNIX". UNIX Version 7 was not a hot performer by today's
standards, but it definitely was "real UNIX". System III on a PC/XT
(aka PC/IX) certainly was not a hot performer, but it was "real UNIX".
Xenix-286 in fact performed better than some ports of UNIX System V.2
to the 286 -- even though they were "real UNIX" (compiled from AT&T
source code!) they were not hot performers.

I cannot judge the respective "performance temperature" of Xenix-386
and System V.3-386, but regardless of that, they are both "real UNIX".

Now, "real System V" is another matter -- but System V is NOT the 
only real UNIX.


--
W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria
PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465            INTERNET: wnp%iiasa at relay.eu.net
FAX:   +43-2236-71313                UUCP:     uunet!iiasa!wnp
HOME:  +43-2236-618514               BITNET:   tuvie!iiasa!wnp at awiuni01.BITNET