Xenix reliability (Was: Re: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3)

[Dave Hammond]

In article <212 at sulaco.UUCP> allen at sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes:
>In article <5084 at rpp386.UUCP>, jfh at rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>  
>> thirty one days looks like reliable to me.
>
>I've got you beat!  I have gone 92 days without a crash.

Without getting too deep into this debate, I will add that I have SCO
2.1.3 and 2.2.1 running on several 286's (6mhz IBM, 10mhz Everex,
10mhz Compaq...) and none has "crashed" in recent memory, except when at the
mercy of the power company. With a UPS installed, the only time a system is
down is when the sysop brings it off-line. All systems run Arnet Smart-8
multi-port boards, 60mb tape drives, and at least 8 concurrent users (sysops
usually log in on several console multiscreens) on 2 shifts daily.

In my opinion, if you are alone in a lab and hacking (you may substitute
"researching") a Unix system - uPort is fine. If you have customers who
are NOT computer wizards, and you do not want to hear "why is this so
slow ?", "what's a core dump?", et.al, and you do not want to be spending
your time hand holding...  Xenix.

Dave Hammond                                                /dsix2!daveh
  UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | spl1 | ...}!{masa.com | hombre}!<
DOMAIN: dsix2!daveh at masa.com                                \marob!daveh
USMAIL: DSI Communications Inc, 333 W. Merrick Road, Valley Stream, NY 11580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------