wanted: UNIX or clone

[IT Manager]

In article <1991May4.160000.18443 at bilver.uucp>, bill at bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
- In article <832 at tiamat.fsc.com> jim at tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) writes:
- 
- >This is the reason we stuck with SCO Unix.  I came to the conclusion that if
- >any Unix 386 vendor was going to insure backward compatibility with Xenix,
- >it would be SCO.  This is born out by the fact that we still build and
- >execute programs using Xenix 286 libraries that were originally bought for
- >Altos Xenix 286 on our SCO Unix machines.
- 
- I have had NO problems running Xenix programs under Esix.
- 
- As a matter of fact, there is an xinstall package for install Xenix
- packages on ESIX.   

Please don't get me wrong.  I never meant to imply that other Unix 3.2's
didn't support Xenix like they should, I just meant to say I took what I
thought was the safest route, and wanted to let others know that it worked.

> The Unix V.3.2 is supposed to run Xenix binaries, and it does.
> 
> And binaries compiled under SCO's Xenix work find too.

Does Esix have the capability to actually *compile* "Xenix binaries"?
This may be the biggest difference.  One of our needs is to be able to
build programs using vendor-supplied Xenix 286 libraries on a Unix 386
machine (I want to get rid of the Xenix machines, but still use one old
Xenix application without the need to pay for an upgrade).  SCO Unix
allows us to do this, which is among the top reasons we stuck with it.

> All of the current 385 Unix release should run the binaries with no
> problems.  However SCO did do a lot of work to make sure that all those
> familiar with Xenix would have no problems and retain a familiarity.

This is actually the thing I like least about SCO Unix.  We have other
"SysV-ish" systems, and I was hoping it would be more similar to them.
------------- 
James B. O'Connor			jim at tiamat.fsc.com
Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc.		615/821-4022 x. 651