From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 21 16:15:51 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA28161 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 16:15:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA28142 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 16:15:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA01613; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 16:14:06 -0800 (PST) To: DARREND@novell.com (Darren Davis) cc: terry@lambert.org, freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: mailling list content - Reply - Reply In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:20:03 EST." Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 16:14:06 -0800 Message-ID: <1611.827453646@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > UnixWare is now a SCO product hence my sudden interest in FreeBSD. I have > a firm belief that SCO will totally screw up everything good we achieved > in UnixWare 2 (Note for the legally impaired: this is my opinion and does > not reflect those of any company I happen to be working for). I am now My, that's awfully cynical of you! I dunno, but before I'd allow myself to get worried about something like this I'd have to first feel that the company in question (SCO) had something of a track record for screwing up previous releases of UNIX. I mean, SCO has long been a leader in the UNIX market, bringing us ground-breaking products like ODT 2.0 and 3.0, then there were their efforts to bring POSIX and X/Open compliance to the header files, and on top of that you've got their long-standing, stalwart support of SVR3 even after many said that it was a dead code base. They even had the courage to unbundle their compilers long before anyone else did. Gee, what ever are you worried about? :-) Jordan