Summary: What's wrong with SCO (long)

[Sean Eric Fagan]

In article <MLYA0S7 at xds13.ferranti.com> peter at ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1991Apr18.063914.13111 at kithrup.COM> sef at kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>> Point in SCO's favor:  AT&T and Intel have adopted sco's
>> implementation for the iBCS thingy; as a result, ISC is not compatable with
>> the standard, and any isc-written COFF program will not work on future
>> releases.
>How does this jibe with Intel dropping direct sales of UNIX and passing it
>on to ISC?

As *I* read it (not being privvy to the thoughts of anyone in the industry,
mind you), ISC consideres their 3.2 product to be obsolete, with the
introduction of SysVr4.  (They're probably right. I could see wanting to
keep xenix, but I don't think there's as much a difference between 3.2 and
4.0 as there is between 2.3 and 3.2.)

>It's almost enough to make me want to try OSF/1. Almost.

SCOSF/1? 8-)

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef at kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.