NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/unix/pcclone/32bit/1372

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 1.6 KB

Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1372 biz.sco.general:5666 comp.unix.sys5.r3:443
Path: sparky!uunet!hobbes!xenitec!news.byu.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!destroyer!fmsrl7!opeo!mjo
From: [e-mail] (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:40:24 GMT
Organization: Not an official spokesperson for Ford Motor Company
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne) writes:

:Certainly not. Dell has no where near the features that SCO has. Think
:in terms of support, availability through sales channels, peripheral
:support, applications, third party products, user training, sales training,
:marketing support, ......

It can be argued that these are not "features" of the OS per se --
this seems more of a comparison of Dell, Inc. vs. SCO, Inc.  One of
the factors missing in your equation is that the support models and
targetted customers are somewhat different (but converging).  Dell is
certainly much less "alone" with SVR4 than SCO is with SCO.

                        ...Mike

--
 Michael J. O'Connor           |  Internet:  [e-mail]
 Ford Motor Company, OPEO      |  UUCP:      ...!fmsrl7!opeo!mjo
 20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001   |  Phone:     [phone]
 Dearborn, MI  48121           |  Fax:       [phone]