Submission for comp-unix-microport

[Paul De Bra]

In article <104 at john.UUCP> john at john.UUCP (John Conover) writes:
>
>We have evaluated most of the available UNIX's for the 386 and
>have settled on Bell Technologies. We found that only Xenix
>(from SCO) and Bell's were stable. The support from SCO is
>superior, but Bell's is cheaper
>	John

You mean that Bell Tech is now offering support? They didn't used to but
kept promising they would start doing that soon. Until recently Bell Tech
did offer NO support at all, just a (30 day?) money-back guarantee.
So "superior" seems like an understatement when you compare having support
to not having support.

>From following discussions on the net my conclusion is that Bell Tech is
indeed the most stable Unix. This is achieved by not fixing known problems
by not providing a means to know the problems (sometimes they read this
group though). People for whom Bell Tech's Unix doesn't work (incompatible
hardware or wanting to use some broken software) just return the product
and buy another Unix.

There is an argument in favor of that. If someone buys a Bell-Tech PC with
Bell-Tech Unix, why should they try to fix a problem, known to exist with
say a Compac and risk breaking something that used to work on the Bell-Tech
PC? Most companies try to offer a Unix that works on ALL AT-compatibles
(with or without 386), and that is bound to fail. Bell-Tech does not try
to do that. Right?

Personally I wouldn't go for Bell Tech, because I don't want to keep looking
for a Unix that will work with whatever I buy. I'd rather buy something that
probably works and for which there is support so I can report a problem and
get a fix. Well, you know what's second on your list...

Paul.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------
|debra at research.att.com   | uunet!research!debra     |
------------------------------------------------------