'386 Unix Wars

[Carson Wilson]

I am disappointed that NOBODY has dared to comment publicly on my post 
about "'386 Unix Wars."  However, I did receive quite a bit of private 
mail in response to my message.  Most of the respondents expressed a 
desire to remain anonymous. I suppose I should have expected this.  
Anyone qualified to give an educated opinion on the various brands of 
i386/i486 Unix available most likely has already invested large amounts 
of cash in one package or another, and the support staffs of SCO and 
Interactive both monitor this network.
 
Nonetheless, below are excerpts from the private mail I've received so 
far, edited for anonymity.  Hopefully they will spur others to add to 
the discussion.  I haven't invested in an operating system yet, so 
perhaps I'm in the unique position of being able to post my opinions 
publicly.  So far my impression is that ISC emphasizes technical 
excellence above all else (making developers happy, but alienating end 
users) while SCO emphasizes marketing above all else (making end users 
and retailers happy, but alienating developers).
 
*** Response #1: *************
 
For whatever it's worth.... my comments. I work at SCO.
 
> 1) Relative merits of Xenix vs. Unix.
XENIX is SVID and SVVS compliant pretty much.  It has no NFS, no
FFS, no FSS (i.e., can only mount XENIX file systems), no CDROM
support, limited support for shared memory.  It's cheap, small, and
mature code (The new 2.3.4 version has ksh, fast SCSI and some
other benefits).  It will be supported indefinitely.  If you believe
that real standards are de facto, then XENIX wins hands down over
all others.  (over 250,000 sold).
 
> 2) Experiences of end users with SCO, Interactive, and other firms.
I've only used SCO.  The current SCO UNIX 3.2 version 2 is pretty solid
and fast.  Quite a few peripherals are supported, and it's backward 
compatible for XENIX apps.  The best buy is Open Desktop, runtime at $995
list. 
 
> 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.
 
SCO has been successful at listening.  We dont really do much else except
shoot ourselfs in the foot occasionally (as with C2).
 
Pls dont quote me. Thx.  Good luck!  I agree that the more discussion
the better.  I know that SCO, at all levels, welcomes and participates
in these discussions, but we cannot speak out on the net too much
for the obvious reasons.  
 
*** Response #2: *************
 
My reading of the situation is that if you are looking for a
production platform, SCO is more stable and better
supported.  If you want an OS that is "just like my 3B2,"
you'll prefer Interactive.
 
The point I'm trying to make is that SCO has a lot more
"value added" features.  Those that need to use several
different Sys V hardware platforms and don't have the time
to learn about the "new improved" system administration
methods of SCO (for instance) will prefer Interactive.
 
Some of SCO's value added features are of debatable value --
see the ongoing discussion of C2-like security -- but the
point is that SCO is commited to enhancing and supporting
the System V OS.
 
My recommendation is to go with SCO unless you specifically
need compatibility with something else.
 
*** Response #3: *************
 
My main recommendation is to stay away from Interactive Systems Corp.
They have arguably the worst technical support I have ever seen (and
I've seen some bad support operations over the years).  Not only are
they unlikely to help you with your problem, they are likely to be
very rude while they do so.  There have been countless horror stories
here of the form, ``I called ISC with problem XYZZY, they said they
would work on it, my thirty days of free support are over with no fix
yet and when I call them they say my thirty days are up and I'll have
to buy a support contract.''  Then they usually hang up immediately.
 
Our experiences with ISC have been somewhat different, but have
evidenced similar behavior, and it is getting much worse, not better.
 
In fact, it is so bad I ask that if you quote me to the net I ask that
you not use my name or my company's name.  Please be very careful about
this.  We still occassionally need to talk to people at ISC, and they
seem to take criticism very personally there.  (At one time we sold ISC
almost exclusively, now we try to avoid it at all costs.  That's a shame,
their product has a lot to offer, they were first in many areas (host
based TCP/IP, and X Windows to name but two) in their product
category.  They still have what is arguably the best X windows product
around.  But it just isn't worth it.
 
I have seen a comment in this newsgroup that their ISV support is much
better than their end-user support.  I can't comment on whether that
is true.
 
As for SCO, it is a decent product, and we have found their technical
support to be excellent.  (We are a distributor, or some such, as an
end-user your mileage may vary.)  They have free mailing lists and
a newsgroup and seem very responsive to questions asked there.  I have
some concerns about SCO.  Many have complained about their C2
security.  I share these complaints, although I have learned to live
with it, I would much rather be able to delete it entirely.  There X
Windows is primitive and slow compared to Interactive's.  It also
sometimes seems like you are joining the version-of-the-month club
with SCO, which is probably a direct consequence of their being
as esponsive to user complaints as they are.
 
More recently, products based on Unix V.4 are available from several
vendors including Dell, UHC, Microport, and Intel.  We just bought a
copy of Dell, and it looks quite solid, although the X Windows is
again not up to ISC's standards.  I personally think V.4 is going to
be the way to go in the future, but it may be a little premature
today.  Significantly, ISC's telnet daemon has problems with V.4
telnet clients.  This is because of something ISC did, and is another
strike against ISC.
 
I guess this sums up to be a recommendation for SCO.  Especially if
you are less interested in X.  They have some definite features
including support for WD7000 SCSI adapters (our favorite, despite
Adaptec's dominance) and a CD-ROM file system.  About the only down
side is their C2 security and (to some extent) their insistence on
mmdf over sendmail.  (But we use neither -- smail3.1.19 is the way to
go, and we have compiled for ISC and SCO.)
 
Oh yes, you asked about Xenix.  Xenix seems to be a thing of the past.
SCO keeps threatening to drop support for it.  Then the existing users
complain and SCO promises they won't do that as long as customers who
want to continue using it exist in sizable numbers.  Nonetheless, it
now seems pretty low on the support food chain (i.e. it is the last to
get the latest enhancements) and the chances of being orphanned in the
next few years probably rule it out.  Xenix was THE system for 286
boxes.  I think its time has passed.  (I also suspect a similar result
for V.3, but that will probably take some years.)
 
Hope this helps.  Maybe I'm being paranoid about wanting my quotes on
ISC to be anonymous, but I'd definitely appreciate your not including
my comments in any posting or email without deleting references to my
name and organization.  We've had a lot of experiences that lead me to
believe we are being singled out as a ``bad organization''.  We once
had them refuse to ship us an update because ``those guys find too
many bugs''.  I'd rather not risk alienating the few people there who
still look out for us.  (What a shame it has come to that.)
 
*** Response #4: *************
...
Support from the vendor (for the retailer) is important, and ISC has 
definitely been taking hits for that lately.  They are under a lot of fire 

over their new (4-5 months) policy of charging an additional fee for 
support to vendors of their products.  News flash -- SCO ALWAYS did this!
...
Buy what you want.  The real bottom line though, is buy from someone who 
will support you.  You're going to need it.
 
*** Response #5 **************
 
I hope this helps.
 
I installed SCO UNIX V/386 on a 80486 box app. 3 months ago.
 
Whatever you do, if you go the SCO route make sure you get version 
3.2.2.  I had the most horrible problems with 3.2.0 and 3.2.1.
 
Also, remember that SCO is a "trusted" systems conforming to the C2 
security level of your DoD. This can be good ot bad, dependent of what 
you expect of security. If you want tight security, it's great, if you 
like to do some hackking around, it's terrible because of the things you 
canNOT do.