SCO flames (and V.4 comparisons)

[Dick Dunn]

sef at kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes some responses to various
complaints/questions about SCO UNIX, among them:

> >System Vr4.0, 
> 
> A piece of crap.  Buggy as hell, larger than 3.2, slow, ugly.

Uh-huh...isn't this the same Sean who was raising hell about a week ago
because people were flaming SCO? ...and who took pains to remind us that
there were good engineers at SCO who had worked hard to put out a good
product, and didn't deserve the sort of abuse that was being heaped on
them?  Scream like a stuck pig when someone insults your work, then turn
around and label other folks' work "crap...buggy as hell...slow, ugly."

So apparently only SCO's engineers have feelings--is that it, Sean?  I
don't like the flames that have been directed at SCO, but don't expect
any sympathy until you show as much civility as you ask.

on a slightly more technical tack...
I tested and measured the then-current releases of V.4 and SCO's ODT about
a year ago.  V.4 was notably faster.  The V.4 kernel was larger than the
ISC V.3.2 (r2.2) kernel by a nontrivial amount, but it was *smaller* than
the kernel for SCO ODT.  V.4 also took a lot less disk space.  Mind you, I
don't think ANYone in SysVland has any basis for complaining that ANYone
else's system is too big.  They're all too big.

V.4 was pretty stable back then.  I haven't poked at a more recent version.
ODT (which, note carefully, was young then) was somewhat less reliable than
V.4.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd at ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.