🚀 go-pugleaf

mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark Davis) wrote:
> Excuse me, but SCO is not trying to imitate "the real thing".  I find that
> attitude interesting; I suppose BSD based systems want to imitate 
> "the real thing" also.  What is so incredibly great in 5.4.2 which is not in
As I mentioned in another thread, I was actually told by an official
rep from SCO that 3.2v4.2 was designed to be "4.2-like".  This is
natural, since they have to compete with 4.2 in the marketplace.
The question of whether SCO intentionally deceived people has been
debated to death in another thread.

> getting really tired of arrogant people like you mouthing off because it is
> not based on some theoretically "higher standard".
> 
Oh stow the flame thrower, wouldya?  It is my opinion that SCO was
intentionally unclear about the heritage of 3.2v4.2, and has failed
in trying to be SVr4; as for the quality of the product, it's fine.
Aside from a couple of compiler bugs in the initial releases of the
Development System, we didn't have too many problems.

The choice of which product is better clearly depends on each
customer.  I've heard of advantages that SVr4 has over SCO - 
a better filesystem and process threads, to name a couple.  To date,
I haven't heard of any advantages SCO has over SVr4.  Given your
experience with both products, would you care to elaborate on this?

> Use what works for you.  If that is SCO, fine.  If that is Unixware, fine.
This is good advice.  Unfortunately, you have to be careful when
considering SCO products to know what you're getting.