rn won't compile on my SCO UNIX

[Rob Healey]

In article <2681 at happym.wa.com> Irving_Wolfe at happym.wa.com writes:
>Oh, come on!  Almost everyone knows that LOTS of good things, well-written in
>proper C, won't compile under SCO's UNIX-flavored operating system.
>
>When we upgraded to 3.2.2 from 3.2.0 because the latter just plain didn't
>work, I unfortunately lacked the presence of mind to demand a simultaneous
>upgrade for the development system that doesn't work.  Because of that, I have
>no idea whether the "fixed" version of the development system actually works
>or not.  Given SCO's standards for quality before release, and given its
>standards for how to treat the customer -- "Hey, he was stupid enough to buy
>our sh.t, tough luck to the idiot!" -- I'd be very surprised if it worked.
>
[ More flames deleted... ]

	I've found that when the Microsloth C compiler bombs out, the
	rcc C compiler tends to work pretty well. I'm a gcc fan from
	way back so I immediately put up gcc and gdb.

	Mr. Wolfe seems to have had many problems with SCO UNIX, I would
	like to say that in most cases I've gotten around those problems
	with rcc and a little .h and manual research...

	As far as upgrading the development system, does ANY 386 UNIX
	vendor give you a MAJOR upgrade for free or at LOW cost? 3.2v2.0
	has many changes, improvements and upgrades. I would classify it
	as a major rather than minor upgrade.

	As far as being treated rudely by SCO, it's never happened to
	me so I can't comment on his statements...

	Personally, I've found the QUALITY and feel of SCO's product MUCH
	nicer than ISC's. ISC feels rough around the edges all over the place
	even in their most recent version. SCO feels more finished to me, 3.2.0
	was a rough OS, so was ISC 2.{01}, 3.2v2.0 fixed the problems found
	in 3.2.0. There is still the question of SCO security but that is
	a religeous issue, it CAN be lived with.

	Mr Wolfe had such a negative view, I wanted to balance it out with
	my positive view and experiences.

			-Rob