wanted: UNIX or clone

[Evan Leibovitch]

larry at nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>>WordPerfect, Lotus 123, and a bunch of others -- on ESIX. The customers
>>are happy. We've developed a fairly extensive catalogue of software
>>which we have tested are prepared to support under ESIX, and there isn't
>>much missing that you'd expect to find.
>
>but the software isn't supported from the vendors - and like I said -
>Word Perfect doesn't support their product on ESIX - so if a problem
>develops - you could be on your own

If, if, if...

I remember the same arguments being used when Phoenix and AMI tried to
come up with compatible BIOS chips. IBM apologists would always say,
"but no software supports these other brands of BIOS, you might be out
in the cold".

The applications shouldn't care what company supplied the BIOS calls, or
the UNIX system calls, as long as they're there, they're compatible, and
they work.

There are a number of products out there right now only "certified" by
the vendor for SCO UNIX because that's likely where the devlopment
was done. That doesn't mean that other platforms aren't supported, and
it's certainly not enough reason on its own to switch to SCO.

It is certainly up to the maker of the compatible equipment, hardware or
software, to make sure their stuff *is* compatible. (It wasn't that long
ago, the same arguments were launched against ISC once their 3.2 had the
ability to run Xenix software). ESIX has responded well to the reports
about console incompatabilities, which have been the only differences
detectable by applications (that is, those which don't need to muck about
with the kernel or filesystems :-P). Where kernel hooks have been seen
as appropriate or necessary (for instance, to run VP/ix), they've been
supplied.

I have not had any problems at all ever dealing with WP support in the
few times I've had to do it. I've been honest in identifying the
platform, and it hasn't effected the answers I've received.

\begin{soapbox}

It is only due to the arrogance of the major players that 386 UNIX
hasn't achieved a binary/distribution standard similar to 88open. Then
this whole issue would be moot. Unfortunately, we happen to be blessed
with SCO, a company which has embraced the Microsoft mentality of "who
needs cooperative standards when it's easier to make our own?". And since
the Intel UNIX pullout and the early botch of SCO UNIX 1.0, Interactive
has shown disturbing signs of gaining the same arrogance.

As Rick R. pointed out in his original posting, a single conference
call between ISC, SCO and AT&T would have prevented what little
incompatabilities exist now between the different UNIX vendors. Where is
the common sense among those players? If the 386 UNIX market doesn't
get its *collective* act together, all of its members just play into
the hands of the UNIX-bashers and AT-architecture-bashers.

Take Microsoft, which despite owning a piece of SCO, will spew anti-UNIX
dogma to anyone who'll listen. On one hand, they complain that 386 UNIX
doesn't have a single binary standard, while they own stock in the company
that's worked hardest to scuttle attempts at just such a standard. Bait
for consipracy theories, anyone?

Factual example: I attended the press release at the Washington UniForum
(1990) where Intel, as a chip maker, attempted to roll out what it called
its Applications Binary Interface. Many hardware vendors, applications
vendors, and all but one 386 UNIX vendor pledged support for the ABI. But
without the support of that one 386 vendor, the whole effort was a washout.
Folks from Intel told me there that they literally begged for SCO's support,
but could not get it.

Who is served by this lack of co-operation?

There is abosutely no reason why there should be separate versions of a
word processor for SCO and ISC. That there is, is an indictment of both
companies, and has been a significant obstacle to getting more
publishers of major software packages to release UNIX ports. One day I
hope that the major players will see that their pitiful attempts to
screw their smaller competition will only hurt them too in the long run.

\end{soapbox}

Anyway, desipte this, the differences which do exist are not large, and
comprehensible to even a merely competent VAR or reseller. As long as the
disagreements exist, no consumer in this market is going to avoid dirty
tricks without reliable and knowledgable vendors to fall back on.

-- 
   Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan at telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
      As bad as Dan Quayle may seem, he'll never compare to Spiro Agnew.