🚀 go-pugleaf

damian@wshb.csms.com (Damian Centgraf - WSHB System Administrator - Engineer) writes:

>In article <1995Mar27.142018.6340@taylor.infi.net> mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark Davis) writes:
>>Another good reason to drop Xenix, and Xenix compatability.  Less baggage,
>>less licensing fees,  less kernel bloat, less things to break, less
>>compatability issues, and as you mention; less third-party control.  Let's
>>face it people, Unix comes to the table with a LOT of excess baggage.  It
>>has really hindered compatability, and pushed up prices.  I have to admire
>>what they have done with Linux; but I have talked to some developers, and
>>some of that "baggage" is hard to replicate or do without.

>	I would sure hate to see this!  I have a MANY apps running under unix
>that where originally on our Xenix systems, pro, lyrix, integra, inhouse 
>programs written and compiled for Xenix that nolonger have the source.  Program
>s that will not upgrade because they are no longer available.  My company 
>couldn't or wouldn't pay to upgrade to a strictly unix version.  There are just
>too many disadvantages to stop this.  It's cheaper for my company to just go
>on paying the royalityies.  The other option is to stop upgrading any further.
>	It's just to expensive to upgrade to all unix apps.  I'm sure that I'm
>not alone.

Damn!  I forgot about that..... we use SCO-PRO also.  There *IS* no
replacement for it :(

-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis     | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk,VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Director/SysAdmin | Information Systems  |    mark@taylor.infi.net       |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/