Summary: What's wrong with SCO (long)

[Dave L. Smith]

In article <1991Apr17.210627.4517 at beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld at cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>\begin{summary}
>I support the notion that for word-processing it might work, but for
>systems programming and serious Unix users, its a joke.
>\end{summary}


Perhaps you would prefer having to work with VMS every day as I do.  Believe
me, there are reasons why people want System V/386 Unix.  It's a very
inexpensive replacement for those $200,000+ Vaxes.  Yes, there is too much
variety among the vendors (SCO, ISC, Esix, etc), but even VMS upgrades
provide endless varieties and entertainment.  They all come from the same
company!  As for me, I like SCO and use it also every day.  It seems to be
the most robust version I have used in terms of device drivers, support
supplements, and utility programs supplied (including the Configure script
which you don't care for - at least I can understand how to use it).

SCO has probably the most experience in the 386 market place, and the
biggest market share (so I've been told).  As for System V, well, it has
much better software availability than BSD Unix.  Like it or not.

So, in spite of the difficulties I have had with SCO products, I would
recommend their Unix.  If you don't like it, you can always use VMS :-(

Dave Smith