From owner-freebsd-stable Fri May 28 17: 9:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from grizzly.fas.com (cc69528-a.mtpls1.sc.home.com [24.6.61.166]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDC615175 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 17:09:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanb@awod.com) Received: by grizzly.fas.com ($Revision: 1.37.109.23 $/16.2) id AA153916542; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:09:02 -0400 Subject: How good is SCO emulation? To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD Stable Mailing List) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 20:09:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stan Brown" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 974 Message-Id: <19990529000910.BDDC615175@hub.freebsd.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG WE have a system installed by a vendor that runs on SCO OpenServer. Today I went to add this sytem to our network only to find that I had inherited a UNIX box _without networking_! After conversations with an SCO salse droid, and his pupet distributor, I am lead to belive that I must do a cold install, just to add neworkign! And worse they want to cahrge me for every use, even ove the network! So here is the question, is it reasonable to consider runing the vendors app unmodified under FreeBSD? -- Stan Brown stanb@netcom.com 843-745-3154 Westvaco Charleston SC. -- Windows 98: n. useless extension to a minor patch release for 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition. - (c) 1999 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is prohibited. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message