wanted: UNIX or clone

[Larry Snyder]

bill at unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes:

>>ISC and their FFS is so much faster than ESIX - and so many off the
>>shelf UNIX applications are available for ISC (Word Perfect and Norton
>>for example).. 

>I've seen this said over and over again by Larry (the FFS issue).  I haven't
>seen the same from anyone else.  Say, anyone else out there have this
>experience?  The ESIX FFS may well be slower than ISC's -- but it doesn't
>"feel" any different to me than the other Unix systems I work on (Harris
>Sysv with FFS, SunOS in various flavors).  

it's just very fast - period.  Nothing (that I have played with) 
for 386 based machines comes close..

ok, then on the second issue above, you mentioned in a previous 
article that ISC VP/ix didn't work under ESIX with some applications -
which brings up my second issue that you quoted.  Those who buy ESIX
and purchase a package that doesn't offically support ESIX - 
are "on your own" 

>I guess there's probably more to the issue than "how it feels."

>As far as apps go ... the original conversation was about HOME Unix systems.
>Maybe I'm mistaken, but I doubt that the majority of people can spend 
>$500 to $1K on a single software package (other than the OS itself).
>When I got WP5.1 for my DOS machine, I paid something like $220 for it.
>That's the price range most people expect for software for home machines.

WP for UNIX is (I believe) the same price as for DOS (single user
that is).

>That being said, I agree that ISC has the name advantage over ESIX.
>If we're in the business of talking about NAMES, though, SCO has the
>unmitigated lead.

SCO has the lead if you consider their XENIX licenses -

-- 
      Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391
                         HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis 
                        regional UUCP mapping coordinator 
               {larry at nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}