🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1995Feb22.202720.13223@taylor.infi.net>,
	Mark Davis <mark@taylor.infi.net> wrote:

>>I haven't seen any marketing ploy recently, but when 3.2v4.0 came out, I
>>got marketing literature that referred to it as "SCO Unix Version 4".
>>There was also a huge "Version 4" sticker on the box.

>>I remain
>>convinced that the SCO marketing folk were trying to decieve prospective
>>customers that it was SVR4.

>I agree it was strange, but without saying "Release 4" or "Release 4.2",
>they technically did not say anything wrong.

That's a major part of the contention. Depending on where you
sit, it's either a harmless coincidence or an evil fraudulent plot.

As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between, unknown to anyone
but a handful of SCO marketing folk.

At one time, I believe that it was "convenient" for SCO to allow its
release numbers to almost exactly parallel those of AT&T. I do believe
that SCO took advantage of the chaos that existed within all the smaller
Intel vendors (Esix, Dell, Microport, UHC, etc).

On the other hand, I also believe that only those with total oblivion of
the marketplace would get "suckered" by such a ploy. Anyone who reads
any magazine reviews or does even a cursory study of what's available
will understand the distinction. And anyone who chooses a Unix *only*
because of its AT&T base release is a fool.

Of course, the issue is now moot. There are three main players in this
marketplace, and their release numbers are suitably different that I
don't think there'll be much confusion anymore. Novell, SCO and Sunsoft
*all* add significant value to their base USL source code; to suggest
that SCO hasn't added substantially to the original USL 3.2 code is
surely as fraudulent as confusing release numbers.

Let's look at where they're at *now*.

UnixWare is at release 1.1.3
SCO is at 4.2.0
Open Desktop is at 3.0.0
Solaris X86 is at 2.4

Is that not clear enough? Just which release numbers are confusing?

Does anyone really give a damn about the base release number anymore?

Is anyone so much of an idiot to believe release numbers of a vendor have
any relevance compared to the release numbers of other vendors?

>I thought we went through this thread in biz.sco.general a long time ago
>and had some type of resolution/conclusion.  But I can't remember all
>of the results, hence my crossposting it to biz.sco.general for additional
>feedback.

Yeah, I remember it. It never really got resolved; after all, people
needed some way to bitch and moan before Linux was invented :-). SCO
boosters said it was a harmless coincidence, SVR4 folks thought it was
awful and a significant contributor to FUD in the marketplace. Now that
the R4 camp has essentially coalesced into Novell and Sunsoft, both of
whom *also* have release sequencing independant from their base release,
this is really no longer an issue.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / evan@telly.on.ca / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics