SCO UNIX bashing

[Chip Salzenberg]

[ Followups to comp.unix.sysv386 ]

First, let me say that I've done my share of SCO-flaming in the past.
I just want them to hang for the crimes they *have* committed.  :-)

According to chris at imsdx3.UUCP (Chris Ott):
>  1) Symbolic links. C'mon guys, how hard can this be to implement?

Reliable source says:  Fixed in 3.2v3.

>  2) Reasonably long filenames.

Reliable source says:  Fixed in 3.2v3.

>  3) SCO UNIX does not have a real C compiler.

Granted.  That's why I use gcc.  Saves everyone a lot of trouble.

While on the subject of the development system, I wish that SCO could
at least edit all the header files to ensure that NULL is always
defined consistently.  (My preferred definition: a plain "0".)

>  4) Also, don't try to defend yourself by saying that you're trying to
>     be "standard" System V. The thing that gets me the most is that
>     SCO UNIX has all these extensions, when the basic stuff isn't all
>     there.

Agreed.  There is no excuse for omitting RFS, for example.

>     As an example, I was unable to compile GCC on SCO UNIX ...

That's easy!  Just define CC=rcc (the "real" AT&T C compiler), and it
compiles out of the box.  Almost.
-- 
Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service:
         When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm]
     Chip Salzenberg   <chip at tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>