Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!
uunet!pipex!uknet!mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!unix1.tcd.ie!cbuckley
From: cbuck...@unix1.tcd.ie (Colm Buckley)
Subject: SCO marketroids strike again!
Message-ID: <cbuckley.737740761@unix1.tcd.ie>
Sender: use...@cs.tcd.ie (NN required at ashe.cs.tcd.ie)
Nntp-Posting-Host: unix1.tcd.ie
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 15:59:21 GMT
Lines: 44
Seen in biz.sco.announce :
>[...]
>Subject: SCO UNIX Operating System 4.2
>
> SCO UNIX Operating System 4.2
>
> PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENT
>
> May 18, 1993 ... SCO is now accepting orders for Version 4.2 of the
> SCO UNIX System V/386 Release 3.2 Operating System for 386, 486 and
> Pentium computers [...]
Is it just me being excessively paranoid, or does this look like an even
more blatant attempt by SCO to fool people into believing that their
ancient SVR3.2 UNIX is really an up-to-the-minute SVR4.2?
The subject line says it's 4.2
The title header on the article says it's 4.2
Not until deep into the introduction, embedded in masses of other numbers,
do we discover that it's really a 3.2 UNIX....
I don't think I'll ever recommend SCO to anyone again.
Flame away, I don't care. I was annoyed before with "SCO Version 4 UNIX",
but now I'm really pissed off. Has anyone considered bringing these
announcements, or SCO's advertising in general, to the attention of some
appropriate advertising standards authority? It's starting to look like a
deliberate attempt to mislead - to my mind, the words "UNIX Operating
System 4.2" instantly suggest a Destiny system, which SCO are not offering.
Surely SCO UNIX can stand on its own merits (and it has a few, notably a
substantial user base and development community) without this type of
underhanded behaviour?
--
Colm.
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Colm Buckley | "My program doesn't work." |
| Department of Computer Science, | "You forgot the semicolon." |
| Trinity College, Dublin 2, | "But..." |
| Ireland. | "Line 376. Check." |
| | "But..." |
| cbuck...@cs.tcd.ie | "Trust me." |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!
saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!ogicse!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!
fastrac.llnl.gov!wsrcc.com!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!allink!leonard
From: leon...@allink.com (Leonard Primak)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Message-ID: <1993May18.232229.13340@allink.com>
Date: 18 May 93 23:22:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: allink.1993May18.232229.13340
References: <cbuckley.737740761@unix1.tcd.ie>
Organization: NYNEX ALLINK Company
Lines: 43
cbuck...@unix1.tcd.ie (Colm Buckley) writes:
>Seen in biz.sco.announce :
>>[...]
>>Subject: SCO UNIX Operating System 4.2
>>
>> SCO UNIX Operating System 4.2
>>
>> PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENT
>>
>> May 18, 1993 ... SCO is now accepting orders for Version 4.2 of the
>> SCO UNIX System V/386 Release 3.2 Operating System for 386, 486 and
>> Pentium computers [...]
>Is it just me being excessively paranoid, or does this look like an even
>more blatant attempt by SCO to fool people into believing that their
>ancient SVR3.2 UNIX is really an up-to-the-minute SVR4.2?
>The subject line says it's 4.2
>The title header on the article says it's 4.2
>Not until deep into the introduction, embedded in masses of other numbers,
>do we discover that it's really a 3.2 UNIX....
>I don't think I'll ever recommend SCO to anyone again.
>Flame away, I don't care. I was annoyed before with "SCO Version 4 UNIX",
>but now I'm really pissed off. Has anyone considered bringing these
>announcements, or SCO's advertising in general, to the attention of some
>appropriate advertising standards authority? It's starting to look like a
>deliberate attempt to mislead - to my mind, the words "UNIX Operating
>System 4.2" instantly suggest a Destiny system, which SCO are not offering.
>Surely SCO UNIX can stand on its own merits (and it has a few, notably a
>substantial user base and development community) without this type of
>underhanded behaviour?
Who cares on "what" it's based?
It supports SVR4 APIs, and the fastest, most integrated unix money can buy.
Fast, Compatible, 3 years I used it, NOT a single problem.
There is no better OS than an SCO os (at least for me).
Leonard.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!unix1.tcd.ie!cbuckley
From: cbuck...@unix1.tcd.ie (Colm Buckley)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Message-ID: <cbuckley.737812578@unix1.tcd.ie>
Sender: use...@cs.tcd.ie (NN required at ashe.cs.tcd.ie)
Nntp-Posting-Host: unix1.tcd.ie
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
References: <cbuckley.737740761@unix1.tcd.ie> <1993May18.232229.13340@allink.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 11:56:18 GMT
Lines: 63
> == leon...@allink.com (Leonard Primak)
>> == cbuck...@unix1.tcd.ie (Colm Buckley) - me
>>Seen in biz.sco.announce :
>>>Subject: SCO UNIX Operating System 4.2
>>Is it just me being excessively paranoid, or does this look like an even
>>more blatant attempt by SCO to fool people into believing that their
>>ancient SVR3.2 UNIX is really an up-to-the-minute SVR4.2?
>>[...]
>Who cares on "what" it's based?
Well, I do, for one. I'm a programmer and a Comp.Sci student. I write
commercial applications as well as fun programs. I like to use the most
modern and best tools and systems available; UNIX has moved on quite
considerably since SVR3.2; SCO's product is notably lacking in a number of
the facilities of Destiny. I've been working with SCO Xenix/Unix since 1988
and I'm very familiar with it; it was a good product when it was launched,
but it's been dramatically left behind now in power and price terms.
>It supports SVR4 APIs, and the fastest, most integrated unix money can buy.
This is not true. Firstly, the interface to SVR4 (SVID 3) contains a quite
substantial number of enhancements to SVID 2 which are not supported by
SCO. In fact, SCO is *notorious* for numerous small, undocumented
divergences between its system and the standard - ask anyone who has tried
porting complex applications to it! In general, things are much easier on
SVR4; firstly, the standard is more tightly defined, and enhancements such
as the BSD-compatibility libraries make porting much easier.
As for SCO being fast - don't make me laugh. Just about anything seems to
be faster than SCO. Look at Dell UNIX, for example - the subjective speed
difference between Dell and SCO is enormous; it's hard to believe that
they're running on identical machines.
>Fast, Compatible, 3 years I used it, NOT a single problem.
I never said that there were any specific "problems" with SCO UNIX; I agree
with you that it is a reliable product. What it is not, however, is
technologically advanced, or particularly exciting in performance or price
terms. I am merely commenting on what appears to be a deliberate attempt by
SCO to deceive prospective customers into believing that SCO's product is
something which it is not.
>There is no better OS than an SCO os (at least for me).
This could be a dangerous attitude. There are far better buys out now. The
latest Unixware pricing is very attractive, especially compared with SCO,
and SVR4.2 (Destiny) products are now quite stable and reliable; we're not
talking "pre-release" or "beta" systems any more.
--
Colm.
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Colm Buckley | "My program doesn't work." |
| Department of Computer Science, | "You forgot the semicolon." |
| Trinity College, Dublin 2, | "But..." |
| Ireland. | "Line 376. Check." |
| | "But..." |
| cbuck...@cs.tcd.ie | "Trust me." |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| I'm speaking for myself, not my employers or my University. |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!bnrgate!
bnr.co.uk!uknet!pipex!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!allink!leonard
From: leon...@allink.com (Leonard Primak)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Message-ID: <1993May19.182501.21183@allink.com>
Organization: NYNEX ALLINK Company
References: <cbuckley.737740761@unix1.tcd.ie> <1993May18.232229.13340@allink.com>
<cbuckley.737812578@unix1.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 18:25:01 GMT
Lines: 29
cbuck...@unix1.tcd.ie (Colm Buckley) writes:
>>Who cares on "what" it's based?
>Well, I do, for one. I'm a programmer and a Comp.Sci student. I write
>commercial applications as well as fun programs. I like to use the most
>modern and best tools and systems available; UNIX has moved on quite
>considerably since SVR3.2; SCO's product is notably lacking in a number of
>the facilities of Destiny. I've been working with SCO Xenix/Unix since 1988
>and I'm very familiar with it; it was a good product when it was launched,
>but it's been dramatically left behind now in power and price terms.
First of all, I don't want to argue about which Unix is better.
You like SVR4.2, or UnixWare better. I like SCO. It's not the point.
The point is all of us against all of Microsoft. I'd like to keep it that
way. Who cares it UW is better than SCO or otherwise, what's to think
about that it's ages ahead of anything by Microsoft.
>As for SCO being fast - don't make me laugh. Just about anything seems to
>be faster than SCO. Look at Dell UNIX, for example - the subjective speed
>difference between Dell and SCO is enormous; it's hard to believe that
>they're running on identical machines.
PC Mag reviewed bunch of UNIXes for Intel, SCO was the fastest in almost
every test. But again, both unixes are 2-3 times faster than Windows,
anad 5-10 times faster than current NT beta, and will be 2 times faster
(I believe) than NT release whenever it comes out.
Leonard
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!
uunet!hobbes!timr
From: t...@sco.com (Tim Ruckle)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 21:04:45 GMT
Message-ID: <1993May21.210445.19822@sco.com>
Sender: n...@sco.com (News admin)
Lines: 88
Hi Colm, I am the "SCO marketroid" at fault here. I mailed the
announcements off to Ed Hew (the moderator of biz.sco.announce)
with those Subjects, and he faithfully posted what I'd sent. The
official literature simply calls the product ``SCO UNIX Operating
System''. The official product announcement begins with that first
sentence, wherein the product is clearly identified as ``Version
4.2 of the SCO UNIX System V/386 Release 3.2 Operating System''.
It was poor judgement on my part, and not a deliberate attempt by the
company to mislead anybody. In my own defense I can only say that it
was about three in the morning by the time I had all eleven announcements
edited and ready to send out--I should have known full well that this
would raise the hackles of some in the net.community...
If it makes you feel any better, I come from a technical background
and I don't wear a tie. I have visited Trinity College, marveled
at the Book of Kells, watched Dublin trounce Kildare at Croke Park,
and shared a wee bit of poteen with the family in Sligo. I've also
hung by my heels and kissed the stone at Blarney, which may help
explain my current predicament. ;^)
I'm sorry you don't think you'll ever recommend SCO to anyone again.
It is true that SCO products stand on their own merits, and there
is certainly no need to confuse the issue. And I did not intend to
do so.
It is perhaps interesting to note of all the major UNIX System providers
which participated in the joint announcement of unification (COSE) at
Uniforum, only one of the product providers ships or is committed to ship
the "official" binary SVR4.2 product. And even that product is not named
explicitly as such. I think this somewhat belies the notion that SCO
would benefit from spreading disinformation in that direction.
SCO is committed to ship the best Intel version of UNIX System and Open
Systems conforming software on the market, and to conform to all the
specified and/or de facto standards (as well as participating in any
industry unification efforts).
SCO does this by building products from the best technologies available
in the marketplace which meet the needs of our customer base. We license
a lot of technology from USL (and continue to evaluate all of their
technology developments--as they disclose them to us--for incorporation
into our product lines). This doesn't imply that we license everything
USL has to offer, and that's okay: for folks that really want it there
are other providers of the technologies we don't offer.
Our focus is on the commercial enterprise users of Open Systems--whether
they are small business or major corporations--and we try to differentiate
ourselves by providing the best total solution to the problem. This
solution has to include everything from the range of hardware supported,
the support and services offerings available, third-party support,
performance, and the robustness of the products.
We believe we have significantly differentiated ourselves in our overall
offerings and will be able to continue to do this to even greater degrees
as the products and marketplace become more sophisticated. I apologize if
this comes off as more marketroid drivel. My point is only that there is
no reason for us to try and "trick" folks into thinking they are buying
UnixWare. If that's what a customer really wants or needs then it's not
in our best interest to dissuade them. In the long run it's much better
to have a happy and trusting customer than to make a sale today...
Of the eight-million-plus users of SCO Systems, most probably don't know
which release they're running on, much less even understand that they're
using a UNIX System at all. And those that know probably don't care. All
they really want to know is that their business is being taken care of.
(obviously the net.opinion is a much, much different mindset... ;^)
And I'm in complete agreement with the poster who said that Open Systems
advocates should not be sniping at one another. SCO has a good product,
(IMHO) as do the other folks. Competition is good, and a rising tide
floats all boats.
Can't we all get along?
Tim Ruckle
Systems Engineer
--
The brawling of a sparrow in the eaves,
The brilliant moon and all the milky sky,
And all that famous harmony of leaves,
Had blotted out man's image and his cry.
--William Butler Yeats, _The Sorrow of Love_
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!fmsrl7!opeo!mjo
From: m...@iao.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Date: 21 May 1993 23:08:38 GMT
Organization: Not an official spokesperson for Ford Motor Company
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <1tjndmINNhb6@ope001.iao.ford.com>
References: <1993May18.232229.13340@allink.com> <cbuckley.737812578@unix1.tcd.ie>
<1993May19.182501.21183@allink.com>
Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <m...@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ope209.iao.ford.com
In article <1993May19.182501.21...@allink.com> leon...@allink.com
(Leonard Primak) writes:
:First of all, I don't want to argue about which Unix is better.
:You like SVR4.2, or UnixWare better. I like SCO. It's not the point.
:The point is all of us against all of Microsoft. I'd like to keep it that
The percentage of SCO owned by Microsoft/Bill Gates is significant.
I doubt that SCO is "against" Microsoft in any way, shape, or form.
--
Michael J. O'Connor | Internet: m...@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
Ford Motor Company, OPEO | UUCP: ...!fmsrl7!opeo!mjo
20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001 | Phone: +1 (313) 248-1260
Dearborn, MI 48121 | Fax: +1 (313) 323-6277
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!
wyvern!taylor!mark
From: m...@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Organization: Lake Taylor Hospital Computer Services
Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 02:31:08 GMT
Message-ID: <1993May23.023108.11913@taylor.uucp>
References: <1993May18.232229.13340@allink.com> <cbuckley.737812578@unix1.tcd.ie>
<1993May19.182501.21183@allink.com> <1tjndmINNhb6@ope001.iao.ford.com>
Lines: 20
m...@iao.ford.com (Mike O'Connor) writes:
>In article <1993May19.182501.21...@allink.com> leon...@allink.com
>(Leonard Primak) writes:
>:First of all, I don't want to argue about which Unix is better.
>:You like SVR4.2, or UnixWare better. I like SCO. It's not the point.
>:The point is all of us against all of Microsoft. I'd like to keep it that
>The percentage of SCO owned by Microsoft/Bill Gates is significant.
>I doubt that SCO is "against" Microsoft in any way, shape, or form.
How significant? I would like to know... (last time I checked, Microshaft, I
mean Microsoft, had a little stock in about EVERYTHING; didn't think this
meant much- seems to the norm).
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
| Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor / m...@taylor.UUCP |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uunet!
mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!unix1.tcd.ie!cbuckley
From: cbuck...@unix1.tcd.ie (Colm Buckley)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Message-ID: <cbuckley.738268047@unix1.tcd.ie>
Sender: use...@cs.tcd.ie (NN required at ashe.cs.tcd.ie)
Nntp-Posting-Host: unix1.tcd.ie
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 18:27:27 GMT
Lines: 174
> == t...@sco.com (Tim Ruckle)
> Hi Colm, I am the "SCO marketroid" at fault here. [...]
>
> If it makes you feel any better, I come from a technical background
> and I don't wear a tie. I have visited Trinity College, marveled
> at the Book of Kells, watched Dublin trounce Kildare at Croke Park,
> and shared a wee bit of poteen with the family in Sligo. I've also
> hung by my heels and kissed the stone at Blarney, which may help
> explain my current predicament. ;^)
Now, what I really hate is the situation you find yourself in where you let
fly a good rant about some company or organisation, and you are later
contacted by a member of this company or organisation, and the person in
question turns out to be a really nice guy!
I don't have any quarrel with any employees of SCO in person; and I accept
that Tim's announcement in itself was probably not intended to deceive.
However, I still find that SCO's product numbering scheme leaves a bad
taste in my mouth; the fact that the "Version 4.2" is given significantly
more prominence than the considerably more important "Release 3.2" in SCO's
marketing material does suggest to me that a certain amount of
"disinformation" is being cultivated.
Combined with the fact that there was no SCO "Version 3" (at least, not
one which was sold to the public) and that "Version 4" came out at roughly
the same time as other vendors started selling full SVR4 products, this
does make me think that someone, somewhere in SCO thought that "we have to
have a 4, too."
I agree with an earlier poster that people are unlikely to buy an operating
system (which after all involves significant expense - especially in SCO's
case) based on the first number they see in the advertising; however, there
is a certain amount of kudos involved in having a number which is higher
than anyone else's number (or, in this case, not *lower* than everyone
else's number). The possibility always exists, particularly in places like
computer magazine tables of competing products and reports on the available
products, that the writer will put in the 4.2 instead of the 3.2 (I saw
this happen in a magazine last year which listed SCO's UNIX as "System V
Release 4".)
This *has* contributed to SCO getting a dreadful reputation in "hacker"
circles. While I appreciate that SCO don't really need to cultivate this
market (and I doubt, what with the traditional hacker's fetish with the
"cutting edge", that they will ever succeed, either), I still find myself
wondering if the overall effect of SCO's numbering hasn't been
detrimental. It's not a really big issue, for me or anyone else; it just
irritates.
> I'm sorry you don't think you'll ever recommend SCO to anyone again.
> It is true that SCO products stand on their own merits, and there
> is certainly no need to confuse the issue. And I did not intend to
> do so.
I don't want this to become yet another "pro-SCO/anti-SCO" thread - but I
will say that I have other difficulties with SCO products, unrelated to the
version number. The main problem is compatibility - to quote from Eric
Raymond's excellent PC UNIX Software Buyer's Guide (available by anonymous
ftp from rtfm.mit.edu as "/pub/usenet/news.answers/pc-unix/software") :
] WHAT THE USERS SAY:
] XENIX is the UNIX port hackers love to hate, but at 70% of the market SCO
] must be doing something right. In general, SCO UNIX and XENIX are reputed to
] be a very polished and stable systems. Unfortunately, they also drive
] developers crazy because of numerous tiny and undocumented divergences between
] the SCO way and the USL-based releases.
]
] [...]
]
] ADVICE TO VENDORS :
]
] [...]
]
] SCO:
] You have a serious image problem with many hackers which you've exacerbated
] recently by falling behind the SVr4 leading edge and then engaging in what
] certainly appears to be an attempt to sucker careless buyers with deceptive
] product naming. But the reaction to this wouldn't be nearly so vehement if
] it didn't come on top of years of discontent with more technical choices.
] There's too much stuff in the SCO kernel and admin tools that's different from
] USL and *not better*; too much stuff that raises weird little compatibility
] problems that shouldn't be there. Verbum sap.
] This different-but-not-better problem is perfectly reflected by the one
] thing about the otherwise-excellent SCO documentation that sucks moldy moose
] droppings; the rearrangement and renaming of the reference manual sections.
] Your technical writers entertain a fond delusion that this helps nontechnical
] users, but all it really does is confuse and frustrate techies with experience
] on other UNIXes. Lose it.
This conforms very well to my own experiences in porting things (and users)
to SCO. Things are different. Things are strange. Programs need to be
tweaked to work properly. Some files are in strange places, or have
slightly altered names. The annoying thing is that there seems to be no
real reason for these changes - why not conform properly? The SCO
documentation makes a big thing out of standards conformance; why can't it
be complete comformance. I for one, (and, I'm sure, developers the world
over) would be a lot happier.
> It is perhaps interesting to note of all the major UNIX System providers
> which participated in the joint announcement of unification (COSE) at
> Uniforum, only one of the product providers ships or is committed to ship
> the "official" binary SVR4.2 product [...]
And how many are committed to ship SVR3.2? I'm not saying that there's
anything wrong with SVR3 (although others disagree :-), but the general
impression I get is that it's a somewhat unfortunate halfway-house, having
been abandoned by USL and only promoted by a few vendors who have gone too
far down the path of enhancing and tweaking it to be able to easily move to
SVR4, *even if they want to*.
> SCO is committed to ship the best Intel version of UNIX System and Open
> Systems conforming software on the market, and to conform to all the
> specified and/or de facto standards (as well as participating in any
> industry unification efforts).
Well, they'd better get a new product, then. Although different people have
different criteria as to what constitutes the "best" UNIX system; I really
think that (a) SCO products are overpriced as well as lagging behind
current technology and (b) do *not* to a particularly good job in
conforming to (at least) the de facto standards which prevail elsewhere. Of
course, there is a strong argument for SCO being a standard in itself, but
that really looks like a bully's tactic.
> SCO does this by building products from the best technologies available
> in the marketplace which meet the needs of our customer base. [...]
1) System V Release 4 is available in the marketplace.
2) SVR4 is a better technology than SVR3.
3) As SVR4 is (more or less) a superset of SVR3, it must meet the needs of
any customers which are adequately serviced by SCO.
Therefore....
> Our focus is on the commercial enterprise users of Open Systems--whether
> they are small business or major corporations--and we try to differentiate
> ourselves by providing the best total solution to the problem. This
> solution has to include everything from the range of hardware supported,
> the support and services offerings available, third-party support,
> performance, and the robustness of the products.
Yes; this is a good point. SCO's third-party support in particular is very
good. But why do you also have to be differentiated by having a product
which is based on 5-year-old technology when everyone else is using SVR4?
If your added-value software is really as standards-conforming as you
claim, then surely it would compile without difficulty on top of Destiny?
WHY are SCO sticking with SVR3? Can anyone there give a straight answer to
this? You have a great new compiler - why don't you license SVR4 source and
bring out something which really flies?
If this was done correctly, it could eliminate your image problem at one
stroke; especially if it was priced at Unixware levels. As the largest
vendor, you could do this, I'm sure. A few attractive upgrade deals
later..... :-) (wishful thinking?)
> Of the eight-million-plus users of SCO Systems, most probably don't know
> which release they're running on, much less even understand that they're
> using a UNIX System at all. And those that know probably don't care. All
> they really want to know is that their business is being taken care of.
So the majority of users don't care which release they run. Well then,
bringing out a new version to satisfy the minority of users who do care
(me, for example :-) won't annoy them one bit. Come *on*!
--
Colm "my finals start tomorrow, what am I doing here?" Buckley
+-----------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Department of Computer Science, | "My program doesn't work." |
| Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. | "You forgot the semicolon." |
+-----------------------------------------+ "But..." |
| EMail : cbuck...@cs.tcd.ie | "Line 376. Check." |
+-----------------------------------------+ "But..." |
| DISCLAIMER : I speak for myself only! | "Trust me." |
+-----------------------------------------+------------------------------+
Newsgroups: biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tarpit!gator!not-for-mail
From: la...@gator.oau.org (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Message-ID: <C7K3Ly.7D8@gator.oau.org>
Organization: GatorNet, Lake Mary, Florida
References: <cbuckley.738268047@unix1.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 00:20:22 GMT
Lines: 154
cbuck...@unix1.tcd.ie (Colm Buckley) writes:
>> == t...@sco.com (Tim Ruckle)
>Combined with the fact that there was no SCO "Version 3" (at least, not
>one which was sold to the public) and that "Version 4" came out at roughly
>the same time as other vendors started selling full SVR4 products, this
>does make me think that someone, somewhere in SCO thought that "we have to
>have a 4, too."
Just like hamburgers -- Hot and Now popped with 35 cent hamburgers, then
McDonalds lowered their price to 39 cents and is spending a lot of money
advertising this. SCO is playing on consumers (as evidenced by the large
amount of users asking questions why this and this won't work with their
SVR4 system they are running, which is SCO).. Sad but true -- and I've
sent many pieces of email informing new SCO purchasers that they've actually
purchased a 3.2 based product, not SVR4 which they honestly believed..
>> I'm sorry you don't think you'll ever recommend SCO to anyone again.
>> It is true that SCO products stand on their own merits, and there
>> is certainly no need to confuse the issue. And I did not intend to
>> do so.
>I don't want this to become yet another "pro-SCO/anti-SCO" thread - but I
>will say that I have other difficulties with SCO products, unrelated to the
>version number. The main problem is compatibility - to quote from Eric
>Raymond's excellent PC UNIX Software Buyer's Guide (available by anonymous
>ftp from rtfm.mit.edu as "/pub/usenet/news.answers/pc-unix/software") :
>] WHAT THE USERS SAY:
>] XENIX is the UNIX port hackers love to hate, but at 70% of the market SCO
>] must be doing something right. In general, SCO UNIX and XENIX are reputed to
>] be a very polished and stable systems. Unfortunately, they also drive
>] developers crazy because of numerous tiny and undocumented divergences between
>] the SCO way and the USL-based releases.
>]
>] [...]
>]
>] ADVICE TO VENDORS :
>]
>] [...]
>]
>] SCO:
>] You have a serious image problem with many hackers which you've exacerbated
>] recently by falling behind the SVr4 leading edge and then engaging in what
>] certainly appears to be an attempt to sucker careless buyers with deceptive
>] product naming. But the reaction to this wouldn't be nearly so vehement if
>] it didn't come on top of years of discontent with more technical choices.
>] There's too much stuff in the SCO kernel and admin tools that's different from
>] USL and *not better*; too much stuff that raises weird little compatibility
>] problems that shouldn't be there. Verbum sap.
>] This different-but-not-better problem is perfectly reflected by the one
>] thing about the otherwise-excellent SCO documentation that sucks moldy moose
>] droppings; the rearrangement and renaming of the reference manual sections.
>] Your technical writers entertain a fond delusion that this helps nontechnical
>] users, but all it really does is confuse and frustrate techies with experience
>] on other UNIXes. Lose it.
>This conforms very well to my own experiences in porting things (and users)
>to SCO. Things are different. Things are strange. Programs need to be
>tweaked to work properly. Some files are in strange places, or have
>slightly altered names. The annoying thing is that there seems to be no
>real reason for these changes - why not conform properly? The SCO
>documentation makes a big thing out of standards conformance; why can't it
>be complete comformance. I for one, (and, I'm sure, developers the world
>over) would be a lot happier.
Yes, it usually requires work to get things up and running with SCO, more
work than with other operating systems (I've used SCO 3.2 3, ISC 3.2 2.01
and SVR4 4.0 and SCO is about the worst of the three to get generic (if
there is such a thing) code compiled..
>> It is perhaps interesting to note of all the major UNIX System providers
>> which participated in the joint announcement of unification (COSE) at
>> Uniforum, only one of the product providers ships or is committed to ship
>> the "official" binary SVR4.2 product [...]
>And how many are committed to ship SVR3.2? I'm not saying that there's
>anything wrong with SVR3 (although others disagree :-), but the general
>impression I get is that it's a somewhat unfortunate halfway-house, having
>been abandoned by USL and only promoted by a few vendors who have gone too
>far down the path of enhancing and tweaking it to be able to easily move to
>SVR4, *even if they want to*.
The number of vendors developing and enhancing 3.2 based products is shrinking
as most of the world has jumped on the SVR4 bandwagon..
>> SCO is committed to ship the best Intel version of UNIX System and Open
>> Systems conforming software on the market, and to conform to all the
>> specified and/or de facto standards (as well as participating in any
>> industry unification efforts).
>Well, they'd better get a new product, then. Although different people have
>different criteria as to what constitutes the "best" UNIX system; I really
>think that (a) SCO products are overpriced as well as lagging behind
>current technology and (b) do *not* to a particularly good job in
>conforming to (at least) the de facto standards which prevail elsewhere. Of
>course, there is a strong argument for SCO being a standard in itself, but
>that really looks like a bully's tactic.
SCO's products are priced in left field considering a complete system
when put side by side with a SVR4 product..
>> SCO does this by building products from the best technologies available
>> in the marketplace which meet the needs of our customer base. [...]
>1) System V Release 4 is available in the marketplace.
>2) SVR4 is a better technology than SVR3.
>3) As SVR4 is (more or less) a superset of SVR3, it must meet the needs of
> any customers which are adequately serviced by SCO.
SVR4 is the current, but that is dynamic and changing. SCO might have
a stable 3.2 product, but ISC 3.2 2.01 product (in our installation at the
time) was very stable as well (the networking had problems*)
>> Our focus is on the commercial enterprise users of Open Systems--whether
>> they are small business or major corporations--and we try to differentiate
>> ourselves by providing the best total solution to the problem. This
>> solution has to include everything from the range of hardware supported,
>> the support and services offerings available, third-party support,
>> performance, and the robustness of the products.
>Yes; this is a good point. SCO's third-party support in particular is very
>good. But why do you also have to be differentiated by having a product
>which is based on 5-year-old technology when everyone else is using SVR4?
>If your added-value software is really as standards-conforming as you
>claim, then surely it would compile without difficulty on top of Destiny?
>WHY are SCO sticking with SVR3? Can anyone there give a straight answer to
>this? You have a great new compiler - why don't you license SVR4 source and
>bring out something which really flies?
that is the key -- SCO's product is based on old products which have
been the basis of SVR4.
>> Of the eight-million-plus users of SCO Systems, most probably don't know
>> which release they're running on, much less even understand that they're
>> using a UNIX System at all. And those that know probably don't care. All
>> they really want to know is that their business is being taken care of.
>So the majority of users don't care which release they run. Well then,
>bringing out a new version to satisfy the minority of users who do care
>(me, for example :-) won't annoy them one bit. Come *on*!
Remember, a good portion of those eight million users are running Xenix.
SCO likes to count their Xenix licenses in their "total Unix customer
statistics". As we know, many of those Xenix (and Unix) licencees have
upgraded to something "more state of the art". I have 3 different Unix
licences here, even though I am only running one.
--
Larry Snyder Internet: la...@gator.oau.org
Lake Mary, Florida UUCP: ..!uunet!rde!gator!larry
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!math.ohio-state.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!mudos!mudos!not-for-mail
From: m...@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Date: 24 May 1993 22:57:47 -0400
Organization: The Programmers' Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <1ts1vb$l5i@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
References: <cbuckley.738268047@unix1.tcd.ie> <C7K3Ly.7D8@gator.oau.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
I don't really believe that I'm responding to another
Larry-Snyder-flamebait posting. But here we go again...
la...@gator.oau.org (Larry Snyder) writes:
>SVR4 is the current, but that is dynamic and changing. SCO might have
>a stable 3.2 product, but ISC 3.2 2.01 product (in our installation at the
>time) was very stable as well (the networking had problems*)
Right. It was "very stable" as long as you didn't try to make it talk
to other machines, eh? I don't consider that "very stable".
SVR4 still has major problems in many areas. I don't know to what
extent UnixWare is going to fix these; from what I've seen it may fix
some of them, but introduce still more bugs. Just for the sake of
equal press time, I'm going to give you a list of reasons why I can't
seriously recommend Esix for our business customers. (And, Esix, if
you're reading this, fixing these would be a great way to "turn over a
new leaf" under new management...)
1. The system is very stable, as long as you have 16MB of RAM or less.
If you want to use more than 16MB of RAM with an Adaptec 154x
controller on an ISA machine, you need to install the 403001 patch.
This, in turn, makes your machine lock up every day or two with no
error messages and no panic dump. SCO, on the other hand, doesn't
need any patches to use more than 16MB of RAM with an Adaptec 154x
controller, and works just fine in that configuration.
2. The parallel port driver doesn't work. Well, okay, if you send
characters to the port, most of them will eventually get to the
printer, so I suppose in that sense it "works". But it certainly
doesn't work reliably enough to use on a regular basis; with my laser
printer, for example, it dropped characters right and left. Printing
is one of the most basic office-type jobs for a Unix machine to do; a
Unix box that can't print is next to worthless. I've worked around
the problem by hooking the printer up to a serial port, but that
assumes that you have a spare serial port, and that also assumes that
your printer has a serial port. (Most of them make you get an
add-on kit to add the serial port, a $50-$80 item.) And that ignores
the performance hit you take, even at 19200 baud. Needless to say,
the parallel ports work just fine under SCO.
3. The serial driver doesn't work. Extensive use of hardware
flow-control will make the system panic. Replacing the asy driver
with SAS works okay, but SAS has its own set of bugs; I just don't run
into those bugs as frequently as I ran into the asy driver bugs.
SCO's serial driver isn't the greatest, but it's mostly usable in the
majority of the situations you're likely to encounter.
3a. ttymon is also broken, which means you have to use the
"unsupported" method of getty or uugetty. God help us when USL takes
these out and we'll *have* to use ttymon; it looks like they've sort
of already done that, with the SVR4.2 connection server.
4. syslogd is broken. It repeats messages to the logs and is mostly
unusable. SCO's syslogd works just fine.
5. System administration is too difficult. Under SCO, if you want to
add a parallel port, you just do "mkdev parallel" and follow the
menus. Same thing with a serial port, a CD-ROM, a new disk, etc.
Almost everything is handled by a "mkdev" script. Under SVR4, you
usually end up having to edit files under /etc/conf, and where there
is an automated menu-driven way to do things, it's not consistent from
one piece of hardware to another. Sure, you can get things done under
both systems, but getting it done under SVR4 is much more
failure-prone and difficult than under SCO.
Most of the problems in SVR4 can be worked around. I'm running Esix
on my home machine, rather than SCO, because I prefer the leading-edge
features and ease of porting software, and I'm willing to work around
the bugs. But most business customers aren't willing to do that sort
of futzing around; they want their system to work, and don't want to
have their vendor instead explain why they "don't really want" to use
parallel ports for their printers when they call to find out why it
doesn't work.
This may be a bit difficult for you to understand, Larry, so I'll say
it slowly. For many business customers, being "state of the art" is
*secondary* to being "reliable". If a system is crashing every other
day, it doesn't matter whether the system is the most advanced thing
since Plan 9; it's still going to get the trash heap.
--
Marc Unangst, N8VRH | "People who love sausage and respect the law
m...@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | should never watch either one being made."
| -The Sausage Principle
Newsgroups: biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!
tarpit!gator!not-for-mail
From: la...@gator.oau.org (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Message-ID: <C7L01x.FLA@gator.oau.org>
Organization: GatorNet, Lake Mary, Florida
References: <cbuckley.738268047@unix1.tcd.ie> <C7K3Ly.7D8@gator.oau.org>
<1ts1vb$l5i@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 12:01:09 GMT
Lines: 88
m...@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
>error messages and no panic dump. SCO, on the other hand, doesn't
>need any patches to use more than 16MB of RAM with an Adaptec 154x
>controller, and works just fine in that configuration.
Don't forget Dell. It works just fine with > 16 megs of RAM as well.
Just because ESIX has this problems doesn't mean that ALL SVR4 products
have it as well.
>the performance hit you take, even at 19200 baud. Needless to say,
>the parallel ports work just fine under SCO.
Likewise with Dell 2.2
>3. The serial driver doesn't work. Extensive use of hardware
>flow-control will make the system panic. Replacing the asy driver
>with SAS works okay, but SAS has its own set of bugs; I just don't run
>into those bugs as frequently as I ran into the asy driver bugs.
what are the problems with the SAS driver (just curious). I only use
the Dell ASY driver for the mouse -- I asked if the driver support hardware
flow control and 16550 FIFO support and received the following from support
>Does the stock Dell 2.2 ASY driver support hardware flow control
>and the 16550AF FIFO buffer?
When accessed as /dev/tty00h, it supports modem hardware flow control. When
accessed as /dev/tty00, it supports terminal hardware flow control. When
accessed as /dev/tty00a, it support 3-wire software flow control. The asy
driver supports the 16550 FIFO buffer.
W>SCO's serial driver isn't the greatest, but it's mostly usable in the
>majority of the situations you're likely to encounter.
Likewise, it appears that the Dell ASY driver works as well, but I can't
verify this as of yet. We use Digiboard CCON-16 products here and they
run fine with Dell 2.2 -- I am in the process of replacing this product
with a 16550 FIFO based board and am seriously thinking about using SAS
>3a. ttymon is also broken, which means you have to use the
>"unsupported" method of getty or uugetty. God help us when USL takes
>these out and we'll *have* to use ttymon; it looks like they've sort
>of already done that, with the SVR4.2 connection server.
I use getty on the modem poll, I've never used ttymon since it doesn't
work the way I want it to (when CD goes high, I want data out the port
along with autologout when the line is lost and after a specified amount
of time)
>4. syslogd is broken. It repeats messages to the logs and is mostly
>unusable. SCO's syslogd works just fine.
I've never used syslogd with Dell 2.2, so I can't comment.
>5. System administration is too difficult. Under SCO, if you want to
>add a parallel port, you just do "mkdev parallel" and follow the
>menus. Same thing with a serial port, a CD-ROM, a new disk, etc.
>Almost everything is handled by a "mkdev" script. Under SVR4, you
Dell comes with adddisk (I belive that is what it is called) and other
scripts which come right up and ask which disk you want to add -- and
prompts for all the questions which are spawned to mkfs, etc... Dell
obviously has added some value to the product over the other vendors
SVR4.
>This may be a bit difficult for you to understand, Larry, so I'll say
>it slowly. For many business customers, being "state of the art" is
>*secondary* to being "reliable". If a system is crashing every other
>day, it doesn't matter whether the system is the most advanced thing
>since Plan 9; it's still going to get the trash heap.
You were comparing ESIX to SCO. Remember, ESIX is the "less expensive"
product available -- as ESIX has usually (to the best of my knowledge)
been one of the cheapest products available since it's initial release.
Just because you had these problems with ESIX which were due to their
lack of effort in enhancing the product, don't say that these problems
exists in ALL SVR4 products. Sure, Dell 2.2 isn't perfect -- but it does
have many of the the features you described above fixed/enhanced.
Dell 2.2 is just as stable (or more) as SCO if not more.
Ask k...@ddsw1.mcs.com.
--
Larry Snyder Internet: la...@gator.oau.org
Lake Mary, Florida UUCP: ..!uunet!rde!gator!larry
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!
destroyer!mudos!mudos!not-for-mail
From: m...@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Date: 25 May 1993 20:04:54 -0400
Organization: The Programmers' Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <1tuc76$aj4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
References: <cbuckley.738268047@unix1.tcd.ie> <C7K3Ly.7D8@gator.oau.org>
<1ts1vb$l5i@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <C7L01x.FLA@gator.oau.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
Your comments about Dell SVR4 are mostly meaningless, since Dell SVR4
is now an orphaned product. Dell is most likely going to drop their
in-house SVR4 within a few months in favor of UnixWare and SCO. In
light of that fact, I can't in good conscience recommend that a
customer purchase Dell SVR4. There's also the issue of VARs -- Dell
has historically been very reluctant to sell their product to VARs for
resale, and has only been willing to give a 5% or so resale discount.
There's no way that some VARs can break even on 5 points, let alone
make money.
la...@gator.oau.org (Larry Snyder) writes:
>Dell comes with adddisk (I belive that is what it is called) and other
>scripts which come right up and ask which disk you want to add -- and
>prompts for all the questions which are spawned to mkfs, etc... Dell
>obviously has added some value to the product over the other vendors
>SVR4.
No, adddisk is a standard SVR4 command, and it comes with Esix as
well. The problem is that there is no analogue for serial ports,
parallel ports, CD-ROM drives, video cards, etc. Can I type
"addserial" to add a serial port? "addcdrom" to add a CD-ROM? There
is no consistency over the different pieces of hardware, and in some
cases there isn't an automated setup script at all.
--
Marc Unangst, N8VRH | "People who love sausage and respect the law
m...@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | should never watch either one being made."
| -The Sausage Principle
Newsgroups: biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tarpit!gator!not-for-mail
From: la...@gator.oau.org (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Message-ID: <C7K3Ly.7D8@gator.oau.org>
Organization: GatorNet, Lake Mary, Florida
References: <cbuckley.738268047@unix1.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 00:20:22 GMT
Lines: 154
cbuck...@unix1.tcd.ie (Colm Buckley) writes:
>> == t...@sco.com (Tim Ruckle)
>Combined with the fact that there was no SCO "Version 3" (at least, not
>one which was sold to the public) and that "Version 4" came out at roughly
>the same time as other vendors started selling full SVR4 products, this
>does make me think that someone, somewhere in SCO thought that "we have to
>have a 4, too."
Just like hamburgers -- Hot and Now popped with 35 cent hamburgers, then
McDonalds lowered their price to 39 cents and is spending a lot of money
advertising this. SCO is playing on consumers (as evidenced by the large
amount of users asking questions why this and this won't work with their
SVR4 system they are running, which is SCO).. Sad but true -- and I've
sent many pieces of email informing new SCO purchasers that they've actually
purchased a 3.2 based product, not SVR4 which they honestly believed..
>> I'm sorry you don't think you'll ever recommend SCO to anyone again.
>> It is true that SCO products stand on their own merits, and there
>> is certainly no need to confuse the issue. And I did not intend to
>> do so.
>I don't want this to become yet another "pro-SCO/anti-SCO" thread - but I
>will say that I have other difficulties with SCO products, unrelated to the
>version number. The main problem is compatibility - to quote from Eric
>Raymond's excellent PC UNIX Software Buyer's Guide (available by anonymous
>ftp from rtfm.mit.edu as "/pub/usenet/news.answers/pc-unix/software") :
>] WHAT THE USERS SAY:
>] XENIX is the UNIX port hackers love to hate, but at 70% of the market SCO
>] must be doing something right. In general, SCO UNIX and XENIX are reputed to
>] be a very polished and stable systems. Unfortunately, they also drive
>] developers crazy because of numerous tiny and undocumented divergences between
>] the SCO way and the USL-based releases.
>]
>] [...]
>]
>] ADVICE TO VENDORS :
>]
>] [...]
>]
>] SCO:
>] You have a serious image problem with many hackers which you've exacerbated
>] recently by falling behind the SVr4 leading edge and then engaging in what
>] certainly appears to be an attempt to sucker careless buyers with deceptive
>] product naming. But the reaction to this wouldn't be nearly so vehement if
>] it didn't come on top of years of discontent with more technical choices.
>] There's too much stuff in the SCO kernel and admin tools that's different from
>] USL and *not better*; too much stuff that raises weird little compatibility
>] problems that shouldn't be there. Verbum sap.
>] This different-but-not-better problem is perfectly reflected by the one
>] thing about the otherwise-excellent SCO documentation that sucks moldy moose
>] droppings; the rearrangement and renaming of the reference manual sections.
>] Your technical writers entertain a fond delusion that this helps nontechnical
>] users, but all it really does is confuse and frustrate techies with experience
>] on other UNIXes. Lose it.
>This conforms very well to my own experiences in porting things (and users)
>to SCO. Things are different. Things are strange. Programs need to be
>tweaked to work properly. Some files are in strange places, or have
>slightly altered names. The annoying thing is that there seems to be no
>real reason for these changes - why not conform properly? The SCO
>documentation makes a big thing out of standards conformance; why can't it
>be complete comformance. I for one, (and, I'm sure, developers the world
>over) would be a lot happier.
Yes, it usually requires work to get things up and running with SCO, more
work than with other operating systems (I've used SCO 3.2 3, ISC 3.2 2.01
and SVR4 4.0 and SCO is about the worst of the three to get generic (if
there is such a thing) code compiled..
>> It is perhaps interesting to note of all the major UNIX System providers
>> which participated in the joint announcement of unification (COSE) at
>> Uniforum, only one of the product providers ships or is committed to ship
>> the "official" binary SVR4.2 product [...]
>And how many are committed to ship SVR3.2? I'm not saying that there's
>anything wrong with SVR3 (although others disagree :-), but the general
>impression I get is that it's a somewhat unfortunate halfway-house, having
>been abandoned by USL and only promoted by a few vendors who have gone too
>far down the path of enhancing and tweaking it to be able to easily move to
>SVR4, *even if they want to*.
The number of vendors developing and enhancing 3.2 based products is shrinking
as most of the world has jumped on the SVR4 bandwagon..
>> SCO is committed to ship the best Intel version of UNIX System and Open
>> Systems conforming software on the market, and to conform to all the
>> specified and/or de facto standards (as well as participating in any
>> industry unification efforts).
>Well, they'd better get a new product, then. Although different people have
>different criteria as to what constitutes the "best" UNIX system; I really
>think that (a) SCO products are overpriced as well as lagging behind
>current technology and (b) do *not* to a particularly good job in
>conforming to (at least) the de facto standards which prevail elsewhere. Of
>course, there is a strong argument for SCO being a standard in itself, but
>that really looks like a bully's tactic.
SCO's products are priced in left field considering a complete system
when put side by side with a SVR4 product..
>> SCO does this by building products from the best technologies available
>> in the marketplace which meet the needs of our customer base. [...]
>1) System V Release 4 is available in the marketplace.
>2) SVR4 is a better technology than SVR3.
>3) As SVR4 is (more or less) a superset of SVR3, it must meet the needs of
> any customers which are adequately serviced by SCO.
SVR4 is the current, but that is dynamic and changing. SCO might have
a stable 3.2 product, but ISC 3.2 2.01 product (in our installation at the
time) was very stable as well (the networking had problems*)
>> Our focus is on the commercial enterprise users of Open Systems--whether
>> they are small business or major corporations--and we try to differentiate
>> ourselves by providing the best total solution to the problem. This
>> solution has to include everything from the range of hardware supported,
>> the support and services offerings available, third-party support,
>> performance, and the robustness of the products.
>Yes; this is a good point. SCO's third-party support in particular is very
>good. But why do you also have to be differentiated by having a product
>which is based on 5-year-old technology when everyone else is using SVR4?
>If your added-value software is really as standards-conforming as you
>claim, then surely it would compile without difficulty on top of Destiny?
>WHY are SCO sticking with SVR3? Can anyone there give a straight answer to
>this? You have a great new compiler - why don't you license SVR4 source and
>bring out something which really flies?
that is the key -- SCO's product is based on old products which have
been the basis of SVR4.
>> Of the eight-million-plus users of SCO Systems, most probably don't know
>> which release they're running on, much less even understand that they're
>> using a UNIX System at all. And those that know probably don't care. All
>> they really want to know is that their business is being taken care of.
>So the majority of users don't care which release they run. Well then,
>bringing out a new version to satisfy the minority of users who do care
>(me, for example :-) won't annoy them one bit. Come *on*!
Remember, a good portion of those eight million users are running Xenix.
SCO likes to count their Xenix licenses in their "total Unix customer
statistics". As we know, many of those Xenix (and Unix) licencees have
upgraded to something "more state of the art". I have 3 different Unix
licences here, even though I am only running one.
--
Larry Snyder Internet: la...@gator.oau.org
Lake Mary, Florida UUCP: ..!uunet!rde!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!hobbes!timr
From: t...@sco.COM (Tim Ruckle)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 05:48:38 GMT
Message-ID: <1993May26.054838.2277@sco.com>
References: <1993May19.182501.21183@allink.com> <1tjndmINNhb6@ope001.iao.ford.com>
<1993May23.023108.11913@taylor.uucp>
Sender: n...@sco.com (News admin)
Lines: 36
IN article <1993May23.023108.11...@taylor.uucp>
m...@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
} m...@iao.ford.com (Mike O'Connor) writes:
} >In article <1993May19.182501.21...@allink.com> leon...@allink.com
} >(Leonard Primak) writes:
} >:First of all, I don't want to argue about which Unix is better.
} >:You like SVR4.2, or UnixWare better. I like SCO. It's not the point.
} >:The point is all of us against all of Microsoft...
}
} >The percentage of SCO owned by Microsoft/Bill Gates is significant.
} >I doubt that SCO is "against" Microsoft in any way, shape, or form.
}
} How significant? I would like to know...
The Preliminary Prospectus says that Microsoft has 16.5% prior to the IPO,
and will have 14.5% after. There's also a clause wherein Microsoft agrees
that it will not aquire more than 20% of the total voting power of the
company, and SCO has a right of first refusal to purchase shares that they
elect to sell until May '96.
Note that this prospectus is preliminary, and the information contained
in it is subject to completion or amendment. You might be able to get
a finalized version now by contacting Goldman, Sachs, & Co. of NY, NY.
Now, I'm not a financial wizard by any stretch, but wouldn't this imply
that Microsoft has a vested interest in SCO, not the other way around?
Tim Ruckle
--
I give up. Now I realize fully what Mark Twain meant when he said, 'The
more you explain it, the more I don't understand it.'
--Justice Jackson's dissent in SEC v Chenery II
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of SCO, Inc.
Newsgroups: biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!hobbes!timr
From: t...@sco.COM (Tim Ruckle)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 04:57:50 GMT
Message-ID: <1993May27.045750.11502@sco.com>
References: <cbuckley.738268047@unix1.tcd.ie> <C7K3Ly.7D8@gator.oau.org>
<id.IHG_.RW5@nmti.com>
Sender: n...@sco.com (News admin)
Lines: 48
In article <id.IHG_....@nmti.com> pe...@nmti.com (peter da silva) writes:
} In article <C7K3Ly....@gator.oau.org>
} la...@gator.oau.org (Larry Snyder) writes:
} > Remember, a good portion of those eight million users are running Xenix.
I don't have the IDC numbers for '92 handy, so this may very well be different
by now. But using their numbers through calendar year '91, SCO XENIX had
SCO's largest installed base, SCO UNIX was our best-selling product, and
SCO Open Desktop was our fastest growing product.
For '91 IDC credited SCO with 95,000 UNIX shipments (50%), 66,500 XENIX
shipments (35%), and SCO Open Desktop with 28,500 shipments (15%). My guess
is that given their '92 numbers and '93 estimates XENIX may end up in the
minority (though still represent a "good portion") of the installed base,
and the estimated users will be around ten million.
In any case, I'm not exactly sure what Larry's point here is, other than
that fact that we've been shipping a packaged version of the UNIX operating
system for a decade now, and are committed to protecting our customers'
investments.
} Another good reason for SCO not to dump SVR3. the last time they tried this
} was when they shifted from Xenix to SVR3, and the alarums and excursions
} from their customer base was incredible. They're STILL supporting Xenix
} even though they've quit enhancing it. There is no reason to assume that the
} majority of SCO customers would react with anything less then shock and
} horror to another such forced migration without some overwhelming reason...
} and right now SVR4 doesn't provide one.
I was going to (and may still) respond to Colm's last article, but this is
in essence the definitive answer to his central question: there were/are
many compelling reasons not to switch, and no overriding reason as yet to
disregard those.
Tim Ruckle
PS. We did release a new version of TCP/IP for XENIX last year, and
continue to provide bug fixes and feature enhancements (SCSI tape drives
and Adaptec Host Adaptors) to version 2.3.4. Though it is probably fair
to say the the bulk of our engineering effort is now going into enhancing
our other product offerings.
--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
These opinions are mine an not necessarily those of SCO, Inc.
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!
news.intercon.com!digex.com!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: s...@access.digex.net (Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols)
Newsgroups: biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Date: 30 May 1993 14:07:34 -0400
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <1uat56$rse@access.digex.net>
References: <1ts1vb$l5i@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <C7L01x.FLA@gator.oau.org>
<1tuc76$aj4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <1993May29.152452.22528@bilver.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
Dell SVR4 is not being orphaned. Promoted, no, but not orphaned. You'll
be able to get Dell SVR4 for at least the forseeable future. Dell will
promote NeXTStep and Solaris on their boxes to the extent that NeXT and
SunSoft helps them promote these new Unixes.
Steven
--
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
s...@access.digex.net
Newsgroups: biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!
uunet!psgrain!randy
From: ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush)
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Message-ID: <1993May30.224657.12466@psg.com>
Sender: n...@psg.com (Randy Bush)
Organization: PSGnet, Portland Oregon, US
References: <1ts1vb$l5i@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <C7L01x.FLA@gator.oau.org>
<1tuc76$aj4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <1993May29.152452.22528@bilver.uucp>
<1uat56$rse@access.digex.net>
Date: Sun, 30 May 1993 22:46:57 GMT
Lines: 8
s...@access.digex.net (Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols) writes:
> Dell SVR4 is not being orphaned. Promoted, no, but not orphaned. You'll
> be able to get Dell SVR4 for at least the forseeable future.
So, it's kinda like Xenix, except it has no installed base to force it to be
kept alive.
--
ra...@psg.com ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!
uunet!digex.com!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: s...@access.digex.net (Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: SCO marketroids strike again!
Date: 31 May 1993 11:02:32 -0400
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <1ud6m8$iv7@access.digex.net>
References: <1ts1vb$l5i@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <1993May29.152452.22528@bilver.uucp>
<1uat56$rse@access.digex.net> <1993May30.224657.12466@psg.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
"it's kinda like Xenix, except it has no installed base."
More or less, though Dell SVR4 does have enought of a base that I
expect it to be around for quite a while. Also, having beat on it
for quite a while, along with the other x86 SVR4's, I've found it
to be very stable, that combined with its wealth of freeware, may
still find it a few customers. Old Unixes never die, they just
fade off the magnetic media.
Steven
--
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
s...@access.digex.net