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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> 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. Natehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509260354.VAA12583>