POSIX bashing

[Michael Stefanik]

In an article, chris at imsdx3.UUCP (Chris Ott) writes:
>In article <1991Mar30.202637.8629 at kithrup.COM>,  sef at kithrup.COM
>(Sean Eric Fagan) claims:
>> (Yes, sco does listen and look at the bug reports!)
>
>Hmm... I find this hard to believe, considering the amount of stuff that
>was left out of SCO UNIX. For example:

	[ list of things that SCO has munged up, like no sym links and
	  a funky compiler ]

I agree completely.  I have a fundamental problem with some of the technical
and marketing decisions that SCO has made with XENIX and UNIX.  As Chris has
said, symbolic links are rather fundamental, as well as "long" filenames.
Why weren't they included?

It seems to me that SCO basically regurgitated their XENIX stuff (including
alot of the binaries), slapped a new box on it, and charged a *whole lot more*
money for the product.  It is dissapointing enough that they strip everything
down to the bare metal and charge and arm and a leg to have the system
"enhanced" to a usuable level ... with C2 included in the stinking mess.
Simply bletcherous.

Followups to comp.unix.sysv386

-- 
Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc, Los Angeles | Opinions stated are never realistic
Title of the week: Systems Engineer    | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If MS-DOS didn't exist, who would UNIX programmers have to make fun of?