SCO support for Xenix (or lack of).

[John F. Haugh II]

In article <309 at pallas.athenanet.com> kabra437 at pallas.UUCP (Ken Abrams) writes:
>First I think it is imperative that we precisely define "support" 
>for the context of this discussion so we can know exactly what SCO
>has in mind.  If we are talking about upgrades and enhancements as
>support, then I have absolutely no problem with a decision by SCO
>to drop this kind of support.  If, on the other hand, we are talking
>about bug fixes and "customer" support (ie user has a place to call
>with questions) then I do NOT think it is proper for SCO to stop this
>kind of support on such a short time frame as is proposed (1991).

XENIX is very old and exists in a market which pretends to be heading
towards increased standardization.  [ Which is why the OSF exists -
to insure Yet Another Standard is created ... ]  Letting XENIX die
really makes sense.  It isn't USG and it is BSD.  It's this strange
middle of the road creature which refuses to behave like what we'd
expect a "UNIX" thingy to behave like.

SCO's decision to stop support in one or two years is no less
arbitrary than their decision to stop support in three or four
years.  It would, IMHO, be best to take my licks up front, rather
than investing years of effort in an operating system I wasn't
sure would be supported in three more years.

>That's my 2 cents worth.  I do think that someone at SCO owes us a
>better definition of what they mean when they say that they 
>"might drop support for Xenix 386 sometime after 1991" (may not be an
>exact quote).

They do pay attention to this newsgroup.  You will probably receive
at least e-mail from someone there, plus a free subscription to
whatever developer mailing list they have ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh at rpp386.cactus.org