Bell Tech 386 SysVr3

[Kevin Davies]

In article <465 at sp7040.UUCP>, jsp at sp7040.UUCP (John Peters) writes:
> In article <25145 at ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, jsilva at cogsci.berkeley.edu (John Silva) writes:
> > How does Bell Technologies 386 based SysVr3 stack up to SCO?  It seems to have
> > everything, but I am really unsure as to it's reliability.  Is it stable?
> > Do all the utilities work as they should?  Is it really a 'complete UNIX'
> > as they advertise?
> > 
> 
> I know that I am going to get flamed on all this (Hi Terry) but I do feel
> SCO is misleading the public with their advertisments for Zenix System V.
> It is not AT&T System V Compatable and I beleive SCO is trying to
> capitalize on the bandwagon.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe we can finally cut out the System V - BSD - Zenix
> wars when System V Release 4 comes out.  Somehow I doubt that SCO will be
> willing to relinquish being different.


Well, Terry may not flame you but I think I will (well... just luke warm
anyway :-)

I don't believe SCO is misleading the public at all.  The way I see
it is that they're not saying "we ARE Sys V" but rather "almost
Sys V compatible".  Each release from SCO, especially SCO/386 brings
them closer to true AT&T Sys V.

For example, SCO/386 2.2 added the terminfo database while still retaining
the older Xenix style plus the addition of the initabs file which *is*
system V.  They also have Sys V compat. shared memory and semaphores as
well as the Xenix style ones as well.

When SCO does become fully System V, they can still boast of being
different due to the additions to the operating system they
add (i.e., virtual logins at the console).

-- 
Kevin Davies		International Information Service (IIS)
UUCP:  {uunet,utai,watmath}!dalcs!iisat!kevin
Bitnet/Uucp: kevin at iisat.uucp	 Arpanet: kevin%iisat.uucp at uunet.uu.net