SECURITY BUG IN INTERACTIVE UNIX SYSV386

[Rob Healey]

In article <1991Feb14.142947.1777 at metaware.metaware.com> ken at metaware.UUCP (ken) writes:
>In article sef at kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>-In article bekesy at uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Bekesey Lab) writes:
>----Now, the question is, what do we do to protect ourselves in the meantime?
>---Get SCO.  [...]
>--Please keep your mindless SCO chauvinism to yourself.
>-Gee, that's funny.  When people complain all about SCO's problems, and other
>-people respond with "Get ISC or ESIX," I don't see you complaining about
>-that.
>
>I think you got flammed for posting a rather blatent advertisement for SCO.
>Most people probably know that you work there and that you have rather biased
>opinions about SCO's products.  That type of posting is generally frowned
>upon.  
>
	Strange, I've seen alot of articles that are blatant advertisements
	for ESIX or ISC as well. I have zero ways to tell if those people
	are intimately involved with the respective companys or not. How
	could I tell that kithrup.com was a "sco.com" in a mask? How could
	I tell that the sites smashing SCO and praising ISC/ESIX really
	aren't ISC/ESIX people in a mask?

	I personally thought ISC was lacking a few months ago and thus
	argued for SCO at our site. ISC felt very rough around the edges
	and gave me an uneasy feeling about the overall reliability. SCO
	has it's problems but it feels less ragged than ISC. Once you
	get used to the Secureware abortion it runs pretty good.

	Now, I have good reason to believe my gut level impressions of ISC from
	a few months ago...

	-Rob

Speaking for self, not company.