home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!mudos!mju
- From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
- Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
- Message-ID: <Btzo2C.vn@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:15:46 GMT
- References: <9209021728.AA01630@dynamix.com>
- Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
- Lines: 72
-
- In article <9209021728.AA01630@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:
- >application will run perfectly on different systems. It means that single
- >binary will successfully execute. Period. It doesn't provide for
- >differences in filesystem layouts, file naming conventions, specific file
- >location and usage, and all the other b'zillions of subtleties
- >that do now and will continue to separate the various Unixes out there.
-
- If the application is written properly, getting it to execute properly
- is about 90% of the battle. Filesystem layout and file location can
- either be configured by the sysadmin when he sets things up, or can be
- fixed with symlinks. (Oops, I forgot. Xenix doesn't have symlinks.
- Sorry, I guess you lose.) Despite what you might think, most of the
- versions of SysV-based Unix for the 386 are surprisingly similar in
- the issues you mention. Which file(s) is/are it that Esix put in a
- different place from Dell?
-
- >instead of opinions to back that up? I haven't talked to a single vendor
- >who's even so much as HINTED at dropping Xenix support (I'll qualify this
- >by saying that Xenix 286 support is waning, and with good reason)
-
- So what are the "good reasons" to drop Xenix/286 support? As far as I
- can tell, it's still a viable OS -- there are people out there still
- running it (I know, we have a client who is using it), and it serves
- their needs just fine. So why is it okay for vendors to ditch
- Xenix/286, but not okay for them to drop Xenix/386? After all, apps
- compiled for Xenix/286 will run on Xenix/386, plus SCO Unix, ODT, and
- SVR4...
-
- (Or is it that Xenix/286 is missing lots of features -- like a decent
- memory model -- that vendors want to use?)
-
- >Xenix is the absolute most mature and stable product on the *nix market.
-
- Again, you're making these sweeping statements. Qualify "mature" and
- "stable", please.
-
- >What exactly do you mean by "clean"?
-
- I mean that SCO Unix doesn't have ugly kludges like Xenix's
- pseudo-inittab file. Or Xenix's horrid V7-style kernel configuration.
- And ever try to get Xenix to use domain-style e-mail addresses with
- the software SCO supplies?
-
- >Easier to administer?
-
- Yep. I don't have to keep two separate areas in my mind for "the way
- Xenix does things" and "the way everything else does things."
-
- >How many Xenix systems have you administered or are you currently
- >administering? How many *different* Unix systems?
-
- I think I answered that a day or so ago. I don't directly manage any
- Xenix systems at this point; over the past couple years, I've managed
- probably five or six. Right now I do technical support for our
- customers, some of whom are running Xenix, some of whom are running
- Unix, and some of whom are running ODT.
-
- >Nice choice of .sigs ... sounds like you're out to enlighten the entire
- >world (and not just us unfortunates on c.u.x.sco!) to your way of
- >thinking.
-
- It's a JOKE, Dave. Y'know, like, something you laugh at? Get a clue.
- No, here, take two -- they're small.
-
- ># Real men don't try to tell the world what a real man does. #
-
- Oooh. Why, I feel so...unMANly now.
-
- --
- Marc Unangst | Real men don't use Windows. Real men use X.
- mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | Only a real man would use a GUI where the
- | shift keys after "Alt" are "Super" and "Hyper."
-