Bell Tech 386 SysVr3 (really a put-down of Xenix)

[Greg Woods]

In article <1585 at spdcc.COM> dyer at spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes:
> [ ... about my flames ... ]
>-- 
>Steve Dyer
>dyer at harvard.harvard.edu
>dyer at spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer

Unfortunately, it's not just my experiences I've drawn my fuel from.
There are a lot of unhappy users out there (especially around here).
Unfortunately(?) not many of them are on Usenet either.

If you want to know just how bad the Microsoft compiler is, collect the
bug list from the MS-DOS world too.  It's the same compiler, and the
MESS-DOS'ers get the newer versions first!

It would be impossible (for me) to give detailed accounts of all the
problems I've heard of.  The not-so-short outburst I've already
accounted is only a small portion.  If I hadn't known Xenix had been
around for so long, I'd have thought I was being used as a beta site.

I wonder at the luck of some people.  I suppose some combinations of
hardware and software survive much better.

What bothers me most is the marketing ploy the consumers of Xenix (and
Intel) have fallen for.  The claims these people make often border on
the edge of reality.  Calling Xenix "System V", and then backing it up
by saying it passes the SVID is not quite fair.  Calling some of the
differences between Xenix and Unix "features" is not fair either.  It's
often said that a "bug" can be disguised, or even documented, as a
"feature".  One can say the same thing about Microsoft that many are
saying of IBM and DEC:  "Why should they go all out for an operating
system that competes with their own proprietary systems?"

I can also say that the general feeling in "corportate" Canada is that
Xenix not a prime choice in the multi-user marketplace.
-- 
						Greg Woods.

UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!{ontmoh, ontmoh!ixpierre}!woods
VOICE: (416) 242-7572 [h]		LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada