SCO stopping enhancements for Xenix?

[Don Glover]

In article <280 at milhow1.UU.NET>, how at milhow1.UU.NET (Mike Howard) writes:
> In article <1313 at polari.UUCP> corwin at polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes:
> >In article <Hy78e2w160w at nstar.UUCP>, larry at nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
> >> Has anyone else heard anything from SCO about stopping ... Xenix development
> >
> >MicroSnot 5.1 compiler.  Today I was told there will be no upgrade for the
>                                                             ^^^^^^^
> >xenix development system, if I want to upgrade I have to go to Unix (and
> 
> They seem to use the word `update' when there is a `bug-fix'/minor enhancement
> fix and they change the third digit of the release number.  This argues
> that there will be a Xenix Dev Sys 2.3.1 or 2.3.2.
> 
> FYI - lng#085 contains a 386 compiler which is based on the Microsoft 5.?
> compiler - as well as a few bugs.  There is mention of a lng#085b in the
> bowels of the SCO bulletin board - but it is _not_ being shipped and
> media does not know about it (as of my last contact) - because of the
> imminent `update'.


Mike, you may be corect in this (see my subsequent posts), I got the lng#085
update but it was so full of half fixes that it caused more problems than
it fixed.  I did find out there would be a 2.3.1 update available 'late
march', but if I understand things correctly this take things from compiler
level 4.85 to level 5.1, now if that is not an upgrade I do not know what is.
 
In addition it seems that the tech support desk is unaware of this impending
update and not all the sales people are. (especially the snotty ones)
 
We will see, all in all I suspect that the basis for my original message 
was not in error even if it might have been stated incorrectly, SCO is
hanging xenix users out to dry.  In addition they are making it so expensive
to upgrade from xenix to unix that it looks to be more cost effective
to go to some other brand of unix.