Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!pitt!amanue!oglvee!jr
From: j...@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <682@oglvee.UUCP>
Date: 26 May 92 19:35:55 GMT
Organization: Oglevee Computer Systems, Connellsville, Pa
Lines: 34

Sorry if this is a rehash of ground already well-thrashed -- I haven't had
much time for the net lately.

It's my understanding that 1) SCO UNIX is basically a V.3.2 kernel and that
2) SCO has withdrawn from ACE.  Suppose I buy a new box whose native operating
system is SCO UNIX.  Will I be running V.3.2 *FOREVER*?  Note I'm not talking
here about going off and installing "my own" operating system, e.g. Hurd or
BSD386 etc. etc.:  the question is, what will SCO themselves be supporting
say 3 years from now?  Or do they really think that V.3.2 is the end-all and
be-all of operating systems?

It appears to me (as a complete outsider) as though SCO doesn't want to bite
the licensing bullet to do V.4, and has apparently fallen out of bed with
OSF.  They appear to be thinking, roughly (wrongly!):  "We are the 800 pound
gorilla in the PC UNIX marketplace; we don't really *HAVE* to make a move in
kernel technology; let's wait a while and let the dust settle."

This makes me very nervous.  We are in the market for a new box.  I would love
to get some kind of SMP box.  If it runs SCO MPX then I've got all kinds of
questions about what happens to the Corollary stuff *on top of* my SCO
questions.  I am really not terribly crazy about V.3.2, particularly the
virtual memory technology.

USL is telling me where they're headed, and making moves that let me guess at
some things they're not telling me.  (E.g. buying a piece of Chorus Systemes.)
OSF is telling me where it's headed.  SCO doesn't seem to be saying anything.
The only thing those with a stake in SCO seem to be able to say is "Hey,
lookit the pie chart!  We're That-Big-Fat-Piece!  That's all you need to
know!"  Didn't we used to call this IBM-think?  Most aggravating.
-- 
Jim Rosenberg             #include <disclaimer.h>      --cgh!amanue!oglvee!jr
Oglevee Computer Systems                                        /      /
151 Oglevee Lane, Connellsville, PA 15425                    pitt!  ditka!
INTERNET:  amanue!oglvee...@vax.cs.pitt.edu

Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!cdin-1!fred
From: f...@cdin-1.compu.com (Fred Rump)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <1992May27.211719.2810@cdin-1.compu.com>
Date: 27 May 92 21:17:19 GMT
References: <682@oglvee.UUCP>
Organization: CompuData
Lines: 102

j...@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes:


>It's my understanding that 1) SCO UNIX is basically a V.3.2 kernel
   Correct - but with vs 4 features
   
   
   >and that
>2) SCO has withdrawn from ACE. 
   
   Let's say standing by along with everyone else. The real ACE folks were 
   driving RISC technology and INTEL seems to have reacted with a vengeance 
   to cut that shit out. 
   
   
   >Suppose I buy a new box whose native operating
>system is SCO UNIX.  Will I be running V.3.2 *FOREVER*?
   
   Nothing last forever not CP/M, not DOS, not ULTRIX or UNIX
   
   You could worry yourself to death about tomorrow.  In the meantime you
   will be left behind and out of business.  What should always be somewhere
   under a VAR's thinking cap is the knowledge that technology is not what 
   sells. End-users typically want results and safety for the right price.
   
   
   
   >Note I'm not talking
>here about going off and installing "my own" operating system, e.g. Hurd or
>BSD386 etc. etc.:  the question is, what will SCO themselves be supporting
>say 3 years from now?  Or do they really think that V.3.2 is the end-all and
>be-all of operating systems?

   If SCO knew all the answers they would surely take advantage of them.  In
   the meantime they probably do not wish to risk the company by being just
   another V4 dealer without any added value. It does not take a thousand 
   people to sell Consensus or Dell UNIX - it takes a lot of people to keep 
   lots of customers happy and run what they need to run. AT&T never learned 
   that lesson. They simply gave you the source and said, 'you fix it'.
   
   I would think that SCO will make whatever changes are necessary to stay
   competitive.  If someone wants to buy v4, they can certainly do so now
   and don't need SCO.  If too many people start doing this, SCO may try top
   find out why.  In the meantime, most folks are still saying:  "what me
   worry about kernel tweaking?  Does it run my application?  Fine!".
   
   
   
>It appears to me (as a complete outsider) as though SCO doesn't want to bite
>the licensing bullet to do V.4, 
   
   That is a close call to what is probably the case.  They would have to
   pay more to their competition.  Their investment in 3.2 is too great to
   simply chuck because of some outerworld 'standard'.  They still think
   they are the standard.
   
   
   >and has apparently fallen out of bed with
>OSF.  They appear to be thinking, roughly (wrongly!):  "We are the 800 pound
>gorilla in the PC UNIX marketplace; we don't really *HAVE* to make a move in
>kernel technology; let's wait a while and let the dust settle."
   
   ODT and DEC are closely aligned with OSF/1.  This has little to do with
   SCO's main product:  multi-user terminal based operating systems.
   
   But who ever said OSF is anything but more propriataryness anyway?
   
   
>This makes me very nervous.  We are in the market for a new box.  I would love
>to get some kind of SMP box.  If it runs SCO MPX then I've got all kinds of
>questions about what happens to the Corollary stuff *on top of* my SCO
>questions.  I am really not terribly crazy about V.3.2, particularly the
>virtual memory technology.

   Hell, buy a Sequent!  If money is no object, go for it.  On the other
   hand, there is good product out there that uses modified Corollary
   technology for cheap.  A Everex STEP or an Altos 10000 give bang for the
   buck and the hell with virtual memory technoly.  The Altos will be
   upgradeable to the 15000 and will handle hundreds of terminals.  How many
   do you need? 
   
   Exactly what is it you buy computers for?
   
>USL is telling me where they're headed, and making moves that let me guess at
>some things they're not telling me.  (E.g. buying a piece of Chorus Systemes.)
>OSF is telling me where it's headed.  SCO doesn't seem to be saying anything.
>The only thing those with a stake in SCO seem to be able to say is "Hey,
>lookit the pie chart!  We're That-Big-Fat-Piece!  That's all you need to
>know!"  Didn't we used to call this IBM-think?  Most aggravating.


   I'll take the small piece of the big pie anytime. It may be aggravating, 
   but that's life.
   
   Fred


-- 
Fred Rump              | 'A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep
CompuData, Inc.        | or taste not the Pierian spring'    Alexander Pope
10501 Drummond Rd.     |		SCO Advanced Product Center
Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| Internet: f...@COMPU.COM         (215-824-3000)

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!
math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!unido!adagio!grog
From: g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <204@adagio.UUCP>
Date: 28 May 92 08:59:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: adagio.204
References: <682@oglvee.UUCP>
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Lines: 26

In article <6...@oglvee.UUCP> j...@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes:
> I am really not terribly crazy about V.3.2, particularly then
>virtual memory technology.

You obviously haven't looked at SVR4's memory technology.

>USL is telling me where they're headed, and making moves that let me guess at
>some things they're not telling me.  (E.g. buying a piece of Chorus Systemes.)
>OSF is telling me where it's headed.  SCO doesn't seem to be saying anything.

Well, a year ago they said they were going with ACE. Then it became
evident that everybody had his own view of what ACE is. Then the whole
thing fell apart. I would guess that SCO doesn't *know* what to do
now, and there are a lot of long, painful meetings going on in Santa
Cruz. They may be lucky in being the biggest, but that won't keep them
going very long.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Lehey                       | Public access UNIX available - try BSDI 
LEMIS                            | out on our machine! Mail and news 
W-6324 Schellnhausen 2           | connections available
Germany                          | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Tel: +49-6637-1488               | Mail: grog%le...@Germany.Eu.net
Claimer: The opinions expressed *are* the opinions of LEMIS

*** NOTE ***: My mail headers are suffering from a virus. The correct
reply address is grog%le...@Germany.EU.net

Path: sparky!uunet!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!yeti!davidsen
From: david...@yeti.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <1992May29.202548.10878@crd.ge.com>
Date: 29 May 92 20:25:48 GMT
References: <682@oglvee.UUCP>
Sender: use...@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP)
Reply-To: david...@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 90
Nntp-Posting-Host: yeti.crd.ge.com

In article <6...@oglvee.UUCP>, j...@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes:

|> It's my understanding that 1) SCO UNIX is basically a V.3.2 kernel and that
|> 2) SCO has withdrawn from ACE.  Suppose I buy a new box whose native operating
|> system is SCO UNIX.  Will I be running V.3.2 *FOREVER*?  Note I'm not talking
|> here about going off and installing "my own" operating system, e.g. Hurd or
|> BSD386 etc. etc.:  the question is, what will SCO themselves be supporting
|> say 3 years from now?  Or do they really think that V.3.2 is the end-all and
|> be-all of operating systems?

  Without violating any agreements I can say that I believe that
questions from SCO indicate that they are active evaluating their
position with regard to when it makes sense to change from an enhanced
V.3 to something else. They finally left Xenix, and they will leave V.3
when they feel it is the correct thing to do. There is still a strong
Xenix market, and there is still a V.3 market. When I put on my
consulting hat people ask "what runs the application?" not "does it have
V.4 lacy trim or BSD embroidery on the kernel calls?"

|> It appears to me (as a complete outsider) as though SCO doesn't want to bite
|> the licensing bullet to do V.4, and has apparently fallen out of bed with
|> OSF.  They appear to be thinking, roughly (wrongly!):  "We are the 800 pound
|> gorilla in the PC UNIX marketplace; we don't really *HAVE* to make a move in
|> kernel technology; let's wait a while and let the dust settle."

  I'm pretty sure this mostly false. They are correct in thinking that
they have a market share and will have with a new product. They are
correct that they can retain their market share for a while with
improved current product. They will probably do just what you said, let
the market settle. As boring as I find that technically, I think it's
the best thing they can do from a market standpoint. I suspect that they
can wait until 4Q92 to decide, although I don't think they should wait
too long to share the info with people once they do.

|> This makes me very nervous.  We are in the market for a new box.  I would love
|> to get some kind of SMP box.  If it runs SCO MPX then I've got all kinds of
|> questions about what happens to the Corollary stuff *on top of* my SCO
|> questions.  I am really not terribly crazy about V.3.2, particularly the
|> virtual memory technology.

  The filesystem is getting updated to long filenames and s-links, if
there is a serious problem with vmem it can be addressed, and probably
will. I don't regard vmem as a particular weak point in SCO, based on
not seeing unacceptable performance loss when overloading the system. I
expect the performance to go down a slope, rather than acting as if it
fell of a cliff, and it does. 

|> USL is telling me where they're headed, and making moves that let me guess at
|> some things they're not telling me.  (E.g. buying a piece of Chorus Systemes.)
|> OSF is telling me where it's headed.  SCO doesn't seem to be saying anything.

  Sometimes vendors talk to major customers under non-disclosure and
people doing planning have information not available to the public. If
the vendor talks to honorable people there are no leaks (yes, some
vendors use these talks to spread rumors).

|> The only thing those with a stake in SCO seem to be able to say is "Hey,
|> lookit the pie chart!  We're That-Big-Fat-Piece!  That's all you need to
|> know!"  Didn't we used to call this IBM-think?  Most aggravating.

  On a personal level I find that frustrating. But when I recommend a
system for a small business I'm generally comfortable in telling people
to buy SCO, don't diddle with it, buy the extra support package, and
run your applications in peace. For a business which is going to run
applications, in many cases the best product is the one with longest
MTBF or best selection of software. State of the art is not a factor.

  I don't think anyone would accuse me of being an SCO-lover, but I
don't think that revealing future business plans to every customer is a
requirement for many customers. I sure as hell can't plan my personal
needs out two years, technical business plans include flexibility for
future needs or to use future offerings, and certainly small business
plans are usually based on running the application on whatever o/s
supports it best and the most cost effective hardware. what's the big
deal? If you can say what you want in two years, then buy from whoever
will be there. If not, buy what fits best today.

  Actually I would wait until the end of August or even a bit longer,
perhaps three major vendors will have announcements of feature and price
changes. This does not constitute a statemnt that any given vendor will
make any particular statement of course.

  UNIX-Expo is on Halloween this year. Somehow that seems fitting. We
can all go around with our bags saying "trick or treat," and we won't
really know which until we take delivery...
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
	Recession: your friend loses his job
	Depression: you lose your job
	Recovery: Bush loses his job

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!utzoo!telly!evan
From: e...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 14:04:59 GMT
Message-ID: <2A2A2E8F.43F9@telly.on.ca>
References: <682@oglvee.UUCP>
Lines: 135

In article <6...@oglvee.UUCP> j...@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes:

>It's my understanding that 1) SCO UNIX is basically a V.3.2 kernel and that
>2) SCO has withdrawn from ACE.

Both true.

>Suppose I buy a new box whose native operating
>system is SCO UNIX.  Will I be running V.3.2 *FOREVER*?  Note I'm not talking
>here about going off and installing "my own" operating system, e.g. Hurd or
>BSD386 etc. etc.:  the question is, what will SCO themselves be supporting
>say 3 years from now?  Or do they really think that V.3.2 is the end-all and
>be-all of operating systems?

My honest impression is that this isn't a reasonable question. I don't
think *any* of the vendors, no matter how noble their published plans
are, have a total clue what they'll be selling three years from now.

>It appears to me (as a complete outsider) as though SCO doesn't want to bite
>the licensing bullet to do V.4,

You and I may not agree with them, but there are a number of possible
reasons why SCO hasn't jumped to R4 (all of which are, of course,
total speculation on my part):

- Being stable is better than being newest, and the time to stabilize a
  new release from USL is so long that it's not always worth it;

- The *way* USL implemented new features in R4 (as opposed to the
  functionality of the features) was found wanting, and SCO decided either
  to do their own implementation, or to see what other sources of
  technology are available (such as OSF);

- Licencing R4 might have forced SCO to tow some USL party line with
  regard to marketing, distribution, or other non-source-code matters. SCO
  may not have been willing to be constrained that way.

>and has apparently fallen out of bed with OSF.

How, pray tell, does pulling out of ACE = dumping OSF? It is
still very likely that SCO will be the company that first brings OSF
technology to the 80X86 world (as it did with Motif). But that certainly
doesn't mean it will bring out a full, exclusively OSF/1 package. Just as
SCO has taken (and rejected) various portions of USL source, why couldn't
it do the same with OSF?

While it is unlikely (according to an SCO VP I happened to sit next to
at a dinner last week) that SCO will release OSF/1 as a complete unit,
it is highly possible that what will in the future be called SCO UNIX
will contain significant elements of USL, OSF, and whatever other
sources of software that SCO considers significant (not to mention parts
that they may decide they can do better themselves). SCO has already been
seen to shop for technology, bringing in stuff from Locus, SecureWare, and
othrs besides USL and OSF. For a while they even went to a direct competitor
(Interactive) to supply them with VP/ix.

I believe that in the future, one will purchase SCO products *not*
because it has stood solidly in this alliance or that one, but rather
because you like the particluolar blend of technology that SCO selected
when it went pick-and-choose with the available technologies. Of course,
you'd also be buying into SCO's ability to make these technologies work
with each other, a task not faced by those who choose the all-USL or
all-OSF route. This ability can be established by reputation alone.

Whether you agree with this strategy is open to question. But it
does appear sound. The burning question remaining, then, for SCO's
strategy to work, is whether or not the market believes that:

- At any given point, SCO's core technologies are *close enough* to the
  leading edge (being right at the leading edge is more often a liability
  than a feature);

- SCO's implementation of its blend of technologies works well enough,
  and is conformant enough to industry and market standards.

It is certainly possible that a blend of OSF and USL, containing the best
parts of each, could be better than either of the two on their own.
Whether SCO could pull off such a hybrid remains to be seen.

>They appear to be thinking, roughly (wrongly!):  "We are the 800 pound
>gorilla in the PC UNIX marketplace; we don't really *HAVE* to make a move in
>kernel technology; let's wait a while and let the dust settle."

A past reputation indeed buys SCO some breathing room that the others
lack (as is the case in many fields). If SCO uses this extra time
wisely, it can put even more distance between itself and the competition.
If not, it risks going the same route as Digital Research, WordStar,
VisiCalc, dBASE, and other former market leaders. I am sure that the folks
at the head of SCO are aware that they can't tread water forever (or be
seen to be doing so).

>This makes me very nervous.  We are in the market for a new box.  I would love
>to get some kind of SMP box.  If it runs SCO MPX then I've got all kinds of
>questions about what happens to the Corollary stuff *on top of* my SCO
>questions.  I am really not terribly crazy about V.3.2, particularly the
>virtual memory technology.

Fine. Then you have a choice. You're not stuck with SCO or any other
one vendor to provide your UNIX solution. That's supposed to be what
the term "open systems" is all about.

>USL is telling me where they're headed, and making moves that let me guess at
>some things they're not telling me.  (E.g. buying a piece of Chorus Systemes.)
>OSF is telling me where it's headed.  SCO doesn't seem to be saying anything.

Past experience has told me that even when someone tells you where
they're headed, that doesn't stop them from totally dispensing with that
plan if the market shifts or other opportunities present themselves.
USL's game plan of three years ago said nothing about Novell, and Sun
had appeared to abandon the Intel market when it dropped its i386
hardware. A lot can change in three years, and even the best long term
roads one can follow in this industry are subject to bumps, detours, and
sometimes even u-turns.

So then the choice evolves into "which company's reactions to market
changes and evolving technologies do you trust most, based on past
experiences?" While I would argue that SCO's rep here was good but
has slipped dramatically, others could certainly make a case otherwise.
SCO's situation is nowhere near being past the point of no return.

>The only thing those with a stake in SCO seem to be able to say is "Hey,
>lookit the pie chart!  We're That-Big-Fat-Piece!  That's all you need to
>know!"  Didn't we used to call this IBM-think?  Most aggravating.

UNIX evangelism aside, that's the reason why many of us have gone to
standards-based (as opposed to company-based) technology. Three years
down the road, it's not incredibly painful to dump SCO -- or return to
SCO -- if that's what works for you.

The best advice is to keep your options open.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         e...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
Sunday In Ontario: you can lose your shirt gambling, but you can't buy a new one

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!milano!uudell!bigtex!dellunix!dellunix.dell.com!donn
From: d...@dellunix.dell.com (Donn Baumgartner)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.090339.1331@dellunix.dell.com>
Date: 3 Jun 92 09:03:39 GMT
References: <682@oglvee.UUCP> <1992May27.232338.28532@slate.mines.colorado.edu> 
<1992May30.160639.12977@compu.com>
Sender: n...@dellunix.dell.com (Usenet Administrator)
Organization: DELL Computer --UNIX Software Development Group-- Austin, Texas
Lines: 31

In article <1992May30.160639.12...@compu.com>, f...@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) 
writes:

|> There were many 'joints' around that simply tried to sell something other than 
|> what the market wanted. They are gone now. One of those 'joints' wasted a few 
|> BILLION dollars (in red ink) trying to push its way into the market 'its' way.
|> The remnant gave up and bought NCR for another shot at competing with
|> hardware. As long as SCO will run on the vast majority of hardware platforms 
|> out there in userland, they will be safe because developers will follow that 
|> path. That is why Dell will sell and support SCO against themselves.

There sure are a lot of non-Dell people making assertions about why we are
going to sell SCO.  Each of you has used this for your own purposes...

Get the story straight... SCO approached Dell about selling SCO-unix, and we
said "no way".  They asked why and we told them (=> pile of crap).  They asked
us what they'd have to do to get us to change our minds.  We set up the hoops,
and they are jumping through them.  Support?  Sure, we'll pass your complaints
on to SCO for you... no problem.

In the end, it's simple.  Dell is in the business of making money... period.
Good or bad, we sell DOS, and soon SCO-unix.  The money that comes from those
sales will make our company just as profitable as money that comes from anything
else.  Companies that only offer "the best" are selling themselves short (pun
intended).

All this speculation by (names omitted) that Dell "sees the light" is nothing
short of crap.  SCO-unix and MS-DOS are both inferior operating systems...
Our SVR4 will continue to be the best available for a long time to come.
							- Donn

P.S.  As always, I speak for myself.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!sharkey!nstar!larry
From: la...@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <BpFv1B.KEE@trauma.rn.com>
Organization: The Gator BBS -- Email/News/BBS 219-289-0777
References: <682@oglvee.UUCP> <1992May27.232338.28532@slate.mines.colorado.edu> 
<1992May30.160639.12977@compu.com> <1992Jun3.090339.1331@dellunix.dell.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 19:19:59 GMT
Lines: 18

d...@dellunix.dell.com (Donn Baumgartner) writes:

>Get the story straight... SCO approached Dell about selling SCO-unix, and we
>said "no way".  They asked why and we told them (=> pile of crap).  They asked

gosh -- I'm so glad you stated this.  I agree completely.

>All this speculation by (names omitted) that Dell "sees the light" is nothing
>short of crap.  SCO-unix and MS-DOS are both inferior operating systems...

Yep.  I also put $CO in the same pile with DOS.

I also support $CO machines.  I still believe it's garbage compared
to what is available from other vendors.  

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: la...@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                 uucp: uunet!trauma!larry

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!
ddsw1!karl
From: k...@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <1992Jun6.215336.17645@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Summary: A tale of a former SCO VAR...
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
References: <1992May30.160639.12977@compu.com> <1992Jun3.090339.1331@dellunix.dell.com> 
<BpFv1B.KEE@trauma.rn.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 21:53:36 GMT
X-Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the poster and do not
	necessarily represent the views of MCS or the owners.
Lines: 151

In article <BpFv1B....@trauma.rn.com> la...@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>d...@dellunix.dell.com (Donn Baumgartner) writes:
>
>>Get the story straight... SCO approached Dell about selling SCO-unix, and we
>>said "no way".  They asked why and we told them (=> pile of crap).  They asked
>
>gosh -- I'm so glad you stated this.  I agree completely.
>
>>All this speculation by (names omitted) that Dell "sees the light" is nothing
>>short of crap.  SCO-unix and MS-DOS are both inferior operating systems...
>
>Yep.  I also put $CO in the same pile with DOS.
>
>I also support $CO machines.  I still believe it's garbage compared
>to what is available from other vendors.  

As a former SCO VAR, let me relate my story.

I became interested in SCO when I was first working with '386 machines.  The
OS at the time for '286s was Microport (crash crash!) and their '386 release
stunk.  One thing that really stunk is that it didn't like some of my
perfectly-good hardware.

SCO actually found >me< and called after one of my rants about Microport on
the net!  We had a discussion, which basically was of the form (this was 
something like 1987 now):

Me>	I'm tired of Microport; it crashes every 15 minutes.  

SCO>	Our stuff works.

Me>	You'll have to prove that, but if you're right I'm interested in
	selling and servicing the product in Chicago to commercial users.

SCO>	Our stuff works.

Me>	Prove it!

Two days later, a largish box shows up at our office.  Guess what was
inside?

You guessed right -- a full development system.  Not bad!  I proceeded to
load it up (V2.2) and indeed, with few exceptions, it did work.  Well.  
I complained about the exceptions -- and they got fixed.  Damn; an 
organization that really DOES care about VARs and Customers!

Some of you remember me posting back then.  I had nothing but good things to
say about SCO at that time.  They treated us like Kings, er, CUSTOMERS.  Not
people to make a killing on -- a nice living will do.  I bought a couple of
major upgrades, spent $500 or so on each.  Not bad value really; each came
with significantly better performance.  We bought FoxPlus so we could port
our Dbase/Clipper applications.  That ran well too.

Then, somewhere around 1989 ish, SCO Unix came on the scene.  We were 
expanding rapidly, and needed to tie about 4 '386 class machines together.  
The obvious path was Ethernet.  I called SCO, and basically had the following 
exchange:

Me>	Hi, I would like to run TCP/IP and NFS on your OS, and would like to
	buy what it takes to do that.

SCO>	What version and what do you have?

Me>	Xenix 2.3.2, full development system

SCO>	Can't do NFS on Xenix; you'll have to upgrade to SCO 3.2

Me>	Ok, how much is this going to cost?

SCO>	That'll be roughly $3k, and BTW, we don't have the NFS working yet.
	It'll be at least two or three months before we can ship it.

Me>	I AM a registered developer and VAR; I sell this stuff.  You want to 
	charge me HOW MUCH?  For ONE machine?  To upgrade?  And I can't have
	it until >when<?

SCO>	Roughly $3k, and two or three months.

Me>	Click!

I called ISC.  For $800 I had a complete Unix system, with no bull-pucky
proprietary "security" extensions (which break my major product, BTW).  
That included X windows, NFS, TCP/IP, and others.  It was a "developer's
special", which was fine -- I didn't want to >sell< that copy!

Yeah, it was a little buggy.  I raised plenty of hell.  The bugs weren't
fixed all that well, but the system ran.  With a little care it was stable,
and I sold a number of these to end users (all of which are still quite
happy and running their business on this stuff).

Not long after that I called about buying a copy for a customer of ours who
wanted ODT.  He REALLY wanted ODT.  The exchange went like this:

Me>	I want to order a copy of ODT.

SCO>	I see you aren't registered as an ODT reseller.

Me>	(Puzzled) I >am< a registered VAR, and want to give you money in
	exchange for your product.

SCO>	ODT is a special product.  We only sell it to registered ODT
	VARs.  Regular SCO Vars can not purchase this through us at a VAR
	discount.

Me>	Can I call Softsell (one of their distributors) and buy this?

SCO>	Only if you're a registered ODT VAR (this is getting a little old!)

Me>	Ok, what's it take to get registered as an ODT Var?

SCO>	About $5k worth of our special, wizz-bang training and sales-hype
	presentations, and a week of your time in Santa Cruz.

Me>	Why do I have to do this?

SCO>	Well, you see, ODT is special.  It's so special that we can't just
	let it out to anyone.  You have to know what you're doing or else
	you might cause significant problems at the customer site, and we
	wouldn't want that, would we?  But you can buy it at retail from one
	of our registered VARs; the closest one is......

Me>	Click!

I sold the client a standard X windows solution.  He's been happy ever
since.

A few weeks later I was at Comdex in Atlanta.  I stopped by the SCO booth,
and make quite a fuss about their VAR policies on this matter.  Didn't
matter to them; they would not bend so much as a quarter inch.

At that point I abandoned SCO forever, and decided to never look back.  
Now with Dell SVR4 around at a very reasonabe price, and X11R5 available, I
don't have to bother with things like SCO Unix and SVR3.2 + proprietary
extensions that break my code.

If DELL abandons their own product (which runs SCO packages quite well,
thank you very much) I will be EXTREMELY disappointed.  Their product
out-performs, out-features, and out-lasts SCO by a large margin.  And it's
less than half as expensive feature-for-feature.  IMHO, only an idiot would 
buy the SCO package today.

Count that as a vote for DELL "Just saying no" to any idea of dropping their
own SVR4 product.  That would be a >huge< mistake.

That's the story of MCS & SCO.  Yes, I speak for the company.  I >am< the 
damn company.  Disregard the disclaimer; my posting software inserts that :-)

--
Karl Denninger (k...@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!lll-winken!
iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!dsinc!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
From: f...@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <1992Jun7.152108.2727@compu.com>
Date: 7 Jun 92 15:21:08 GMT
References: <1992May30.160639.12977@compu.com> <1992Jun3.090339.1331@dellunix.dell.com> 
<BpFv1B.KEE@trauma.rn.com> <1992Jun6.215336.17645@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Lines: 41

k...@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>As a former SCO VAR, let me relate my story.

[interesting story deleted]

>That's the story of MCS & SCO.  Yes, I speak for the company.  I >am< the
>damn company.  Disregard the disclaimer; my posting software inserts that :-)

Karl's poignant story seemingly is the UNIX world as seen from a one man
company. There are many such companies represented here. Hackers to the core, 
experts in their field and businessmen last. Reverse the sequence and the 
story would change. 

Had Karl a hundred people to pay every week, he would probably not be posting
and the hundreds, maybe thousands, of customers his people would have to 
support would not so likely switch from what works to the latest new version 
that has hit the marketplace. His people would first of all worry about how to 
support various versions of everything.  They would like as much consistency
as possible to keep the customer questions to one set of reasonable answers.

It is bad enough to have to support every damn user application that behaves
differently with numerous little nuances buried in the code. What a larger 
organization can NOT afford are differences that lie beneath the whole mess.

To some of us support is a way of life:  keep doing support well and you keep
adding customers.  But it's a bitch when you have hundreds of situations to
contend with.  A businessman will attempt to minimize the risk involved to
keep the customer happy above all else.  It is the long term relationship that 
counts and it is not conducive to changing products every few months or years.

Karl has the audacity to call every SCO purchaser stupid or naive (I forgot 
the exact term he used).  I would call such an attitude highly detrimental to 
keeping a 'professional' sign over the front door.  SCO is placed in the same
category as DOS, as being inferior products.

Everybody is stupid except me, right?

It places the given advice and comments into dubious territory indeed.

fred
-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   f...@COMPU.COM     Of what is oatmeal made? 
26 Warren St.   home: f...@icdi10.compu.com   48% of Americans said wheat 
Beverly, NJ. 08010                            (Harper's)
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!digibd!kas!rhealey
From: rhea...@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <1992Jun13.055654.4049@kas.helios.mn.org>
Date: 13 Jun 92 05:56:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: kas.1992Jun13.055654.4049
References: <BpFv1B.KEE@trauma.rn.com> <1992Jun6.215336.17645@ddsw1.mcs.com> 
<1992Jun7.152108.2727@compu.com>
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN
Lines: 34

In article <1992Jun7.152108.2...@compu.com> f...@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) 
writes:
=Karl has the audacity to call every SCO purchaser stupid or naive (I forgot 
=the exact term he used).  I would call such an attitude highly detrimental to 
=keeping a 'professional' sign over the front door.  SCO is placed in the same
=category as DOS, as being inferior products.
=
	SCO products ARE inferior compared to SVR4 UNIX. The SVR4 systems
	at work, I'm talking FULL networking, X11R4, and ALL the goodies
	as well a C compilers that aren't overflowing roach motels installed
	ALOT easier, network better and are MORE reliable than the SCO box
	or the ODT boxes. And FULL SVR4 costs a whole hell of alot less than
	SCO and has ALOT better integrated subsystems.

	Going with SCO is costly and results in ALOT more maintainance overhead.
	Then again, if you only make money by going out to customer sites all
	the time to fix problems then SCO is probably for you.

	How well does SCO scale? I think 4 CPU's is the max, SVR4 MP can go
	much higher than that and has for a couple of years now; DG's Aviion
	systems. A minimum SVR4 runtime takes up about as much space as
	a SCO UNIX runtime. SVR4 runs on many architectures already, SCO
	doesn't.

=Everybody is stupid except me, right?
=
	Stupid no, foolish possibly, definitely NOT getting your money's
	worth.

=It places the given advice and comments into dubious territory indeed.
=
	No, I wouldn't think so. Anybody who isn't EXTREMELY wary of
	SCO obviously hasn't been burned by them enough times; YET...

		-Rob

Path: sparky!uunet!darwin.sura.net!mips!think.com!samsung!nstar!larry
From: la...@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <Bpzp67.CsF@gator.rn.com>
Date: 17 Jun 92 12:25:19 GMT
References: <BpFv1B.KEE@trauma.rn.com> <1992Jun6.215336.17645@ddsw1.mcs.com> 
<1992Jun7.152108.2727@compu.com> <1992Jun13.055654.4049@kas.helios.mn.org>
Organization: The Gator BBS -- Email/News/BBS 219-289-0777
Lines: 25

rhea...@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey) writes:

>	SCO products ARE inferior compared to SVR4 UNIX. The SVR4 systems
>	at work, I'm talking FULL networking, X11R4, and ALL the goodies
>	as well a C compilers that aren't overflowing roach motels installed
>	ALOT easier, network better and are MORE reliable than the SCO box
>	or the ODT boxes. And FULL SVR4 costs a whole hell of alot less than
>	SCO and has ALOT better integrated subsystems.

SVR4 and all the add-ons blend together into one system and operate as
such -- far superior than SCO - for a fraction of the cost.  Applications
written for SCO (Word Perfect for example which we run daily) run flawlessly
under SVR4.

>	Going with SCO is costly and results in ALOT more maintainance overhead.
>	Then again, if you only make money by going out to customer sites all
>	the time to fix problems then SCO is probably for you.

But see -- many of the pro SCO users of this newsgroup get make money 
based on sales (a certain percentage) -- so the more they get from the
end users, the more they can make.

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: la...@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                 uucp: uunet!trauma!larry

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
From: s...@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <1992Jun17.212746.273@wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 17 Jun 92 21:27:46 GMT
References: <1992Jun7.152108.2727@compu.com> <1992Jun13.055654.4049@kas.helios.mn.org> 
<Bpzp67.CsF@gator.rn.com>
Organization: Wimsey
Lines: 24

In article <Bpzp67....@gator.rn.com> la...@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>rhea...@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey) writes:
>
>But see -- many of the pro SCO users of this newsgroup get make money 
>based on sales (a certain percentage) -- so the more they get from the
>end users, the more they can make.

Not all of us. I don't sell SCO products. Never have. Might in the
future but I have no plans to do so. I do sell software that run's
under SCO.

Count me as an end user of SCO products who is never totally
happy with them, but everytime I try anything else I find that a 
lot of the little things don't work quite the same, there is
not support for some piece of hardware I want to use and that
SCO usually provides new releases that fix the problems I was
complaining about.


-- 
Stuart Lynne <s...@wimsey.bc.ca> ....................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/pub/wimseypd

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!karl
From: k...@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <1992Jun21.062449.22882@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Summary: The real meaning of VAR and profit margins
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
References: <1992Jun13.055654.4049@kas.helios.mn.org> <Bpzp67.CsF@gator.rn.com> 
<1992Jun17.212746.273@wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1992 06:24:49 GMT
X-Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the poster and do not
	necessarily represent the views of MCS or the owners.
Lines: 80

In article <1992Jun17.212746....@wimsey.bc.ca> s...@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>In article <Bpzp67....@gator.rn.com> la...@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>>rhea...@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey) writes:
>>
>>But see -- many of the pro SCO users of this newsgroup get make money 
>>based on sales (a certain percentage) -- so the more they get from the
>>end users, the more they can make.

Larry, you're missing the point.

If you REALLY add value, you can set your own system price.  Look at it this
way:

	Dell SVR4 Unix, unlimited users:		$1,599.00
	SCO Unlimited users, all the trimmings:		$4,000.00

(both prices are approximate list price from the makers)

Some people see that as a 30% discount or somesuch as a "dealer" or "VAR",
and see more money from the SCO Sale.

Let's say I sell a complete product.  I sell it for $15,000, including 
hardware, software, and OS.  I get, free of charge, an extra $2,400.00 by 
using the Dell product, all other things being equal.  Since I sell a
complete product, I have the luxury of specifying every piece of that 
product, test and certify every board, and choose each piece for maximum 
customer advantage and performance.  I better do all of the above, and do 
it well; that's why the customer is buying this solution from me!  He or 
she is NOT buying a commodity product in any sense.

If SCO discounts to me at 30% and DELL discounts at 0% I still win with the
Dell setup.  It costs less, and if it performs better and includes more then
I make more money and have a more satisfied end-user.

If you are REALLY a VAR, the "list price" of the OS is irrelavent and so is
the available discount.  It is relavent only to box-pushers and resellers 
who do nothing more than pump product out the door.  Those people charge 
commodity prices for commodity products, and as long as the street price 
of the product is high they make more money (on the percentage-margin basis).  

SCO sells commodities.  They know this.  This is why they charge a "tax" to
get involved with ODT; they aren't interested in custom applications as much
as they are volume (which is a valid business choice) and their "tax" means 
that the base of sellers is smaller, resulting in less competition and a 
higher street price.

A real VAR wants street prices of the components to be LOW, because cost is
completely irrelavent to the picture.  He is able to charge what the entire
package is worth, not what it cost plus a markup.  In this situation a low
street price translates into higher profit, since the VAR can charge the
market value of the completed system in either case.

One other point -- a real VAR also doesn't care whether 95 tape drives are 
supported; there is no value in that to him or her.  What is of value is
that the components that are needed for the application at hand are 
supported, and a sufficient choice is available so that service is not a
problem.  Since the VAR can pick and choose what is in that box, and isn't
selling commodity products in a commodity market, whether 50 different
ethernet or display boards work doesn't matter -- what DOES matter is that 
one board is supported, is available (and will continue to be in case it 
fails) and that performance meets requirements.

THIS is the salient difference.  When I hear people tell me that SCO is
preferrable due to the large support of third-party hardware, I have them
pegged -- they are selling boxes of software to people as a commodity
distribution business, or they want to buy an OS from a box-pusher.  There's
nothing wrong with that.  But its not the business I am engaged in.  The 
incentives to be involved in the PC-hardware and software commodity business 
disappeared over two years ago, and the cutthroat mentality that is left is 
something I don't need or want.  

I'd rather make $10,000 from two or three sales than from 100 sales - I can 
give much better attention to the single customer than I can to 100 customers,
and my overhead costs are lower by orders of magnitude.  I'm also not out of 
business when someone undercuts my system price by $50.00.

--
Karl Denninger (k...@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!canrem!telly!evan
From: e...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 16:27:00 GMT
Message-ID: <2A49F3D5.36D4@telly.on.ca>
References: <Bpzp67.CsF@gator.rn.com> <1992Jun17.212746.273@wimsey.bc.ca> 
<1992Jun21.062449.22882@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Lines: 117

In article <1992Jun21.062449.22...@ddsw1.mcs.com>
	k...@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>If you REALLY add value, you can set your own system price.  Look at it this
>way:
>
>	Dell SVR4 Unix, unlimited users:		$1,599.00
>	SCO Unlimited users, all the trimmings:		$4,000.00
>
>(both prices are approximate list price from the makers)
>
>Some people see that as a 30% discount or somesuch as a "dealer" or "VAR",
>and see more money from the SCO Sale.
>
>Let's say I sell a complete product.  I sell it for $15,000, including 
>hardware, software, and OS. I get, free of charge, an extra $2,400.00 by 
>using the Dell product, all other things being equal.

I'm happy for you that you can sell a product for the same price,
ragardless of what the components are. You are also fortunate that you
have clients who don't insist on a breakdown of how much of the price is
your added value and how much is commodity stuff.

First, nobody pays $4K for SCO. Not only does nobody pay list, but I
think you're artificially inflating things by adding Eroff.

So the gap narrows considerably. Even so, Dell comes out ahead. Well, it
has to. Dell (and ESIX and the other R4 vendors) *must* beat SCO in
price, because SCO has an established reputation, name recognition, and
it isn't perceived to be tied to a hardware vendor.

>Since I sell a
>complete product, I have the luxury of specifying every piece of that 
>product, test and certify every board, and choose each piece for maximum 
>customer advantage and performance.

But if your O/S vendor gives you broader support for third party
hardware, you have more flexibility in assembling your product. For
instance, everyone supports Ethernet controller X, but your favourite
local distributor (the one you have a credit account with) only carries
brand Y. Having an O/S that supports both may not be a huge advantage,
but it offers a VAR s lot more flexibility in what can be done (while
remaining officially supported by the O/S vendor).

SCO's broad third-party hardware support isn't a pressing reason *on its
own* to select that company's UNIX. But it can be important to VARs in
that it allows you to be just a little more flexible, a little more
nimble on your feet than the next guy. If you work in a market that
doesn't require this level of competetiveness, consider yourself lucky.

>I better do all of the above, and do 
>it well; that's why the customer is buying this solution from me!  He or 
>she is NOT buying a commodity product in any sense.

No, but in this age of the catch phrase "open systems", you gain
significant points by being as accommodating as possible to unusual
circumstances. In my experience, it's impossible to do custom setups as
a one-size-fits-all approach.

That's why I like R4 right now. Especially since 4.0.4, it offers SCO
compatability, while SCO (apparently) has no plans to support ELF.
Sometimes perceptions ("which vendor is being more open and flexible")
can count for a lot.

So, to have greatest flexibility, I wanted an OS with the greatest
software flexibility, along with the greatest hardware flexibility, as
well as reasonable bang for the buck. In our own case this search led
to ESIX, but others' mileage may vary.

I won a major contract for ESIX (over, among other vendors, Dell) partially
because it was the only R4 which could drive an Adaptec 1740 without
forcing it to work in 1540 compatability mode. Performance issues aside,
ESIX came across as the R4 vendor which was most concerned about
third-party flexibility. Perhaps (one can argue) ESIX spent its
technical resources on expanding third-party support while Dell could
concentrate more on bug fixes.

But even ESIX pales next to SCO's approach to third-party support.
Partially because it attracts the vendors first, partially because it
has always been aggressive on the issue, SCO has done an admirable job of
encouraging and supporting hardware vendors. I'm sure there are VARs who
choose SCO for this level of flexibility if no other reason.

>SCO sells commodities.

So does every UNIX vendor.

>They know this.  This is why they charge a "tax" to
>get involved with ODT;

There is a reasonable case to be made for trying to weed out the
fly-by-night "resellers" who pull their "knowledge" UNIX out of a
Merisel catalogue ("UNIX? Sure, I can get you UNIX!") and sell it
way they'd sell a copy of MS-DOS. I would applaud SCO's attempt to
do this, however I think its attitude at making such qualifications
a profit centre stinks.

>THIS is the salient difference. When I hear people tell me that SCO is
>preferrable due to the large support of third-party hardware, I have them
>pegged -- they are selling boxes of software to people as a commodity
>distribution business, or they want to buy an OS from a box-pusher.

Well, maybe one day you'll come across a competitor who can offer a smiliar
product to yours, except that their system will accept a Bernoulli box, or
Arcnet, or work with the client's existing 3COM hardware, and yours doesn't.
Your competitor will be able to respond to RFPs which specify such
"exotic" hardware, while you won't even be in the running, no matter how
elegant the rest of your setup is.

Flexibility can be as important a factor in choosing a vendor as price
or performance. And that goes for VARs as well as commodity sellers.


-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         e...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         Dan Quayle is to politics as Ted Baxter is to broadcasting.

Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!agate!rsoft!mindlink!a2
From: Fr...@mindlink.bc.ca (Frank I. Reiter)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <13001@mindlink.bc.ca>
Date: 26 Jun 92 22:16:26 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world
Lines: 26

> Evan Leibovitch writes:
> 
> >       Dell SVR4 Unix, unlimited users:                $1,599.00
> >       SCO Unlimited users, all the trimmings:         $4,000.00
> 
> First, nobody pays $4K for SCO. Not only does nobody pay list, but I
> think you're artificially inflating things by adding Eroff.
> 
> So the gap narrows considerably. Even so, Dell comes out ahead. Well, it
> has to. Dell (and ESIX and the other R4 vendors) *must* beat SCO in
> price, because SCO has an established reputation, name recognition, and
> it isn't perceived to be tied to a hardware vendor.

This conversation has gone on for some time with everybod seemingly taking for
granted that the Dell and SCO products are roughly equivalent.  SCO ODT
includes Merge, something I find very handy, and I on't belive that Dell does.
(I'm sure somebody will set me straight if I'm wrong.)

 Other things I'm not sure of wrt the dell product:  Does it include
development goodies like DOS and OS/2 cross development, Codeview, etc?

Frank.
--
___________________________________________________________________
Frank I. Reiter                Internet: Fr...@mindlink.bc.ca
MIND LINK! Communications Corp. Surrey, British Columbia, Canada

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!mimsy!ra!tantalus!eric
From: e...@tantalus.dell.com (Eric Youngdale)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis SCO?
Message-ID: <2853@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: 26 Jun 92 23:32:20 GMT
References: <13001@mindlink.bc.ca>
Sender: use...@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Dell Computer Corporation
Lines: 11

In article <13...@mindlink.bc.ca> Fr...@mindlink.bc.ca (Frank I. Reiter) writes:
>This conversation has gone on for some time with everybod seemingly taking for
>granted that the Dell and SCO products are roughly equivalent.  SCO ODT
>includes Merge, something I find very handy, and I on't belive that Dell does.
>(I'm sure somebody will set me straight if I'm wrong.)

	Guess what???  Dell SVr4 does come with Merge.  I am not sure which
utilities come with it since I really do not use it very much.
--
Eric Youngdale
e...@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO v IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/