🚀 go-pugleaf

leonard@allink.com (Leonard Primak) joins the fray saying:
> The real enemy isn't SCO.  Who cares what are the minute deviations to the
> "standards" SCO takes...  I mean, it's not worth even talking about what is
> better, "SVR4 or SCO", The real enemy is Microsoft, and If Microsoft sells,
> and tries to make it's own standards, why the same rules shoulden't apply
> to SCO?

What you been smokin'??  I want some!  SCO ain't all that close to standards.
Sure they put all these markings on their ad's, but when code meets compiler
the result is painful.  So either somethings wrong with them or with
the standards.  Since porting between other standards conforming systems
isn't as much trouble I tend to point fingers as SCO.

Look, Microsoft may very well be an enemy.  They are certainly gunning for
the traditional Unix territory, and they are certainly planning on taking
Unix down a notch.  (Hopefully NT is as nice as Inside Windows NT makes
it out to be, so that the result won't be as painful as DOS based solutions).

One of the advantages they're touting is *one*standard*.  Never mind that
nobody but them has input to the standard, there is only one.  Therefore
it should be a lot less trouble to port between CPUs on NT than on Unix.
Soley because the Unix vendors have been STUPID and designed in gratuitous
incompatibilities between themselves.  If there had been more cooperation
between the vendors, the Microsoft would have less of a shot because
the Unix market would be even more prevalent than it is now.


<- David Herron <david@twg.com> (work) <david@davids.mmdf.com> (home)
<-
<- "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them."
<- Karen Hargrove of Microsoft quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial.