Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:38:32 -0800 (PST) From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> To: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Cc: chat@freebsd.org, jkh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Help, I've been SCOed! Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961207214828.2611A-100000@hamby1> In-Reply-To: <199612080539.AAA00263@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, John S. Dyson wrote: > Looking at the above, and knowing how SVR3 was before SCO got ahold > of it, and after. I sure hope that they didn't (actually, in a way > I hope that they did :-)) do the same thing to SVR4 with Unixware. I know what you mean. UnixWare sounds interesting, and performance seems to have been their big focus (esp. Oracle performance), but I guess I'll just have to order the Free UnixWare CD when it comes out in January and see for myself. Reading your quote, and remembering my own experiences with SCO OpenServer, I think it's even scarier to imagine what Gemini will look like (the "best-of-breed" cross between OpenServer and UnixWare due in 1997). <shudder> FWIW, I _was_ able to get FoxPro to run successfully under Linux, so I'll let them know, but I don't think it gets them any closer to a long-term migration path because Linux isn't going to run, e.g. Oracle. UnixWare might be a viable migration path, but I have a feeling that after their previous experiences, they're not going to want to give any more money to SCO! As for FreeBSD, I wasn't able to get FoxPro to work, but ironially it did get farther than Solaris/x86 (it prints an error message about "Too many files open" and exits when in fact only a few files were open). Linux's iBCS2 module even claims to support XENIX binaries, so that answers that question. Also, for those of you interested in ELF, they have freeware Solaris-compatible ELF versions of libc on tsx-11 also. -- Jake
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.961207214828.2611A-100000>