SCO stopping enhancements for Xenix?

[Mike Howard]

In article <1313 at polari.UUCP> corwin at polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes:
>In article <Hy78e2w160w at nstar.UUCP>, larry at nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
>> Has anyone else heard anything from SCO about stopping ... Xenix development
>
>MicroSnot 5.1 compiler.  Today I was told there will be no upgrade for the
                                                            ^^^^^^^
>xenix development system, if I want to upgrade I have to go to Unix (and

I don't think this is quite correct.

As I recall, SCO uses the word `upgrade' when they change the second (or
leading) digit of a release number.  This would mean that there will be
no Xenix Dev Sys 2.4.x ...

They seem to use the word `update' when there is a `bug-fix'/minor enhancement
fix and they change the third digit of the release number.  This argues
that there will be a Xenix Dev Sys 2.3.1 or 2.3.2.

FYI - lng#085 contains a 386 compiler which is based on the Microsoft 5.?
compiler - as well as a few bugs.  There is mention of a lng#085b in the
bowels of the SCO bulletin board - but it is _not_ being shipped and
media does not know about it (as of my last contact) - because of the
imminent `update'.

I wish that SCO had chosen a less cryptic vocabulary - even at the expense
of a few more words.  They could have said `bug-fix release' or `minor upgrade'
or ... and `major release' or `big and nifty release' or ...

Disclaimer: I have no relation with SCO except that I use their products.
This info is to the best of my knowledge - which is known to be flawed.

-- 
Mike Howard
uunet!milhow1!how or milhow1!how at uunet.uu.net