Taking risks on software (ISC)

Conor P. Cahill cpcahil at virtech.uucp
Fri Dec 1 00:56:31 AEST 1989

In article <[25745ed1:160.9]comp.unix.i386;1 at nstar.UUCP>, akcs.larry at nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
> >In article <[25711bb0:160.7]comp.unix.i386;1 at nstar.UUCP> akcs.larry at nstar.UU
> CP

   [ lots of stuff about how bad 386/ix is deleted ]

Well, with all the ragging going on about 386/ix I guess it's time for someone
who is happy with the product to stand up and say so.

So here I am.

I have had 386/ix 2.0.2 running on a multitude of different 386 systems (20MHz,
33MHz, import, USA, etc).  I use all kinds of add on boards including graphics
display cards that are 1600x1200 monochrome, multi-port serial cards, ethernet
cards, tape drives, high performance disk controllers, etc.)

I have been very satisfied with the reliability and performance of 386/ix. 
I run NFS, tcp-ip, X11, VPix without any problems.  I have run xenix software
on this system without any problems.  In fact, due to a development requirement
I even loaded my Xenix system in to a 386/ix file system and ran in a Xenix
environment by performing a chroot to the xenix root. 

My only perk with Interactive is that they don't let me call them when I had 
a problem.  I had to go through my distributer who knows much less then I do
about the product.  Of course, I don't want to have to pay for the ability
to call Interactive since I already paid $3,000 for my software. 

All in all, for me 386/ix works as well as, if not better than, I expected.

BTW, I also have Bell Tech Unix 3.2, and SCO Xenix 2.3.2 and I much prefer
386/ix to both of them.

| Conor P. Cahill     uunet!virtech!cpcahil      	703-430-9247	!
| Virtual Technologies Inc.,    P. O. Box 876,   Sterling, VA 22170     |

More information about the Comp.unix.i386 mailing list