🚀 go-pugleaf

tcliii@netcom.com (Tom Lindamood) writes:

>timr@sco.COM (Tim Ruckle) writes:

[........]

>4. Desktop products ARE going away.  There is no SCO direct replacement
>for professional.  MS Word 5.1?  Please, I haave it.  I got it last fall
>with many assurances of it being able to read WFW files.  Wrong.  MS now
>markets FoxPro directly, there goes foxplus! What happened to Lyrix?
>"go away" no, fade away.
>5. The number of applications which run under SCO IS fading fast.
>These vendors are supporting other unix OS's.  SCO cannot hold on
>to the desktop without applicatons.  SCO cannot hold on to the server
>without applications.  If choice is the driving force, why select SCO
>for the server when only a few applications run on it.  SUNOS will run
>all programs which run on SCO and may of my favorite desktop applications
>which left to MS and windoze.

There lies the key to this and other threads again..... applications
availability under SCO.....  The problem will continue to get worse until
something is done (read: more cooperation between Unix vendors, and between
Unix vendors and applications developers, more good cross-development tools
and cross-compatible tool kits).  Market size is not [does not have to be]
the problem for any particular application under SCO, if cross-development
is fostered.  The people at Applix, for example, said they stopped porting to
SCO ODT not because of markets, but because it was "too difficult".
Why is that?  How is it that they have no trouble with cross-porting to
Solaris, Sun-OS, Unixware, SGI, HP/UX, AIX, etc.... yet do with SCO?
(FYI: I will make sure to ask the next time I talk to such a vendor, and
 will pass along the info).

>>And note also that to my knowledge Microsoft has taken "stock" in every
>>UNIX(TM) license capable of running XENIX binaries.  It is strange but
>>true: in the ``olden'' days they were also a UNIX porting house, and in
>>their own way helped get this biz off the ground.  And they continue to
>>reap the rewards of this in the form of royalties...

>they can also restrict without a controlling interest.

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.

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