Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 21:54:45 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Unix and the desktop ( was Re: ports startup scripts) Message-ID: <199509260354.VAA12583@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199509260133.SAA06459@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199509260050.SAA12272@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199509260133.SAA06459@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> SCO did not try to win the desktop. You can't win the destop by replacing > a contender (Xenix) with a piece of crap (SVR3). That's an opinion I doubt the management of SCO would agree with. [ Xenix usability vs. ODT ] > After the switch to SVR3, SCO was unusable, period, let alone for running > ODT on barely-sufficient-under-Xenix-hardware. Hmm, this sounds *alot* like what a large # of unix vendors did. SunOS -> Slowlaris Xenix -> ODT SVR3 -> SVR4 Ultrix -> OSF/1 (now Digital Unix) Unfortunately, moving from a small/robust OS to a more featureful but slower (and often more buggy) OS isn't considered a 'bad thing' by marketing, but rather instead a step in the right direction. However, this arguement has already degenerate into an opinion war, which I'll no longer participate in. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509260354.VAA12583>