Choosing a 386 unix

Steve Scherf steve at altos86.Altos.COM
Sat Sep 1 03:45:13 AEST 1990

In article <1990Aug29.154047.28841 at arcturus.uucp> evil at arcturus.uucp (Wade Guthrie) writes:
>R N Robert writes:
>** Santa Cruz Operations: SCO XENIX / UNIX (2 different products)
>	- ease of system administration

Have you ever used "sysadmsh"? This is the system administration tool through
which you are required to configure your system, unless you know exactly what
you are doing and are very careful; if C2 is enabled, you really do have to
use it. To say the least, sysadmsh is buggy and very constricting, and by its
nature takes a lot of power away from the administrator. I think this bullet
belongs in the disadvantage list.

>	- (UNIX) C2 security

In marketing terms C2 security is certainly a feature, but very few
administrators and even fewer end users would call C2 security a feature or
an advantage. It seems that you can't ever truly get rid of it, even if it's
disabled (or "relaxed" as they say). It is for this reason that on the Altos
5000 (plug) we actually completely disable some of the fundamental elements
of C2 if the adminstrator chooses to relax security; we also discourage the
enabling of C2 in the release notes. Further, we don't support a configuration
where both C2 and TCP/IP are installed. This item clearly belongs in the
disadvantage bucket.

Another item you might want to add to the disadvantage list is:

	- buggy

Granted, SCO Unix is still pretty much in its infancy, but the fact remains
that there are quite a few bugs in the os, runtime system, and compiler. I
can't speak for ODT, not having really used it, but my guess is that it's 
no more reliable than the rest of the product. Compared to other, more
seasoned, versions of Unix, SCO Unix has a way to go in becoming stable.

Steve Scherf
steve at Altos.COM    ...!{sun|sco|pyramid|amdahl|uunet}!altos!steve

These opinions are solely mine, but others may share them if they like.

More information about the Comp.unix.i386 mailing list