'386 Unix Wars

[Tom Neff]

Warning -- this took its own reins and turned into a flame.

In article <276d312d-8aecomp.unix.i386 at point.UUCP> carson at point.UUCP (Carson Wilson) writes:
>I'm trying to build an Intel 80386-based Unix machine for programming, and 
>am having a difficult time determining which of the various i386 Unix 
>vendors to support with my purchase.

Try defining what you want to DO with your system, then checking to see
who offers what you need to do it.  Individual value added UNIX vendors
do differ in terms of which options they support, which they bundle and
so forth.  Right now it's not hard to make an informed choice if you
read the literature.

>As anyone shopping around for Unix system software soon discovers, there 
>is a war on.  

Oh please.  Until they start issuing gas masks at COMDEX, the only thing
a 'war' means to the average UNIX consumer is that pricing is more
attractive.  That's good news, but functionality is still more important.

>              At least two or three manufacturers are actively competing 
>for the desktop Unix market.  

More like six or seven.  Crack a magazine!

>                              It appears that the Santa Cruz Operation 
>(SCO) has grabbed the largest piece of the market so far, but is facing 
>intensive competition from Interactive Systems Corporation.  AT&T and 
>Intel also market Unix software for the i386, but seem to be less 
>aggressive in pushing their product lines.

This is like a Computer Newsflash for October 1988.  Dell and Everex are
going crazy.  Intel bought Bell Tech and is putting full page spreads in
the trade mags.  AT&T has always sold hardware to institutional accounts
and supplied standard software to run on it.  

>There is also a product named "Xenix."  Xenix was originally Microsoft's 
>tradename for its Unix clone.  The name has now been licensed to SCO and 
>probably other firms.  From what I understand, Xenix is a less 
>sophisticated, but also less expensive alternative to desktop Unix.  Xenix 
>lacks some of the capabilities of Unix, but requires only about 1/2 the 
>memory and disk storage Unix needs.  According to a salesperson at SCO, 
>though, Xenix is "on the way out" as a system standard.

Did I say 1988?  I may have been too generous.

>I have generally found plenty of sales and support people who are happy to 
>"inform" me of the relative merits of their software over that of other 
>firms, but I haven't seen any discussion of this on Usenet.  

In what, the past three days?  All we do is beat this subject to death
with a posthold digger six times a month until Hell freezes over!

>                                                             I'd like to 
>know your views on:
>
>1) Relative merits of Xenix vs. Unix.
>
>2) Experiences of end users with SCO, Interactive, and other firms.

Is that all.  See below.

>The i386 Unix market is evolving quite rapidly.  

Did it say that in the WEEKLY READER UNIX Supplement, or what?

>                                                  I feel we should discuss 
>this topic far more actively while we still have a chance to determine the 
>direction desktop Unix will take.  If we allow market forces alone to 
>decide which standards succeed, we may be disappointed in the long run.

Excuse me a moment.

<SCREEEEEAAAAMMMMSSS into paper bag>

>Ahem< OK, all better.

My gentle suggestion is that it might be better to get some kind of a
****ing clue where UNIX 386 is at today (1990 for readers with
calendars) before worrying overmuch about thumping the nasty ole market
forces and determining "direction."

In the meantime, shut up and buy something.  You want the best deal in
town?  Buy one of the SVR4 developer upgrades.  For $400 to $800 you get
a full developer kit including NFS, RFS, ANSI C, debuggers, Open Look,
TCP/IP etc., plus a little buglist a blind man could work around.  Some
of them claim to want your 3.2 boot disk in exchange.  If nobody you
know has a backed-up original they'll part with, just send the money
and see if you don't get the software.  These people aren't in business
to refuse your money.

Apologies to the readership for the flame portions above -- something
rang my fatuity meter.