Subject: Re: Linux vs. the world From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 20:36:21 GMT
In article <1992Aug08.001344.15942@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> jliddle@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Jean Liddle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.213050.26414@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>>| There's a world of difference. In my view (I used to use Interactive
>>| Unix) Linux is very comparable to commercial *nises, and surpasses
>>| them in many areas. But with the rate Linux is improving, I have
>>| no doubt that it will be the best available *nix for the 386 soon.
>>
>> I think you let your enthusiasm run away with you there...
>
>In what way? When I was working at Bayer last summer one group was using
>SCO unix. The compiler couldn't even handle floating point numbers
>correctly, and unless you had purchased support, no free fixes were
>forthcomming. Furthermore, the system crashed more than once/day.
>Linux, despite its few bugs, is much, much more stable (even with
>patches every week or so!). There is no question in my mind that linux
>is better than SCO unix - I can't comment on other unises, but I don't
>think the comments made before were someone's "enthusiasm" running away
>with them...
SCO comes with two compilers. The default compiler, cc, is Microsoft C.
The AT&T compiler is rcc.
I have a client that has a 386/33 with 6 terminals running SCO. This
system is used daily for data entry and database lookup. It is also
a .UUCP site that sends out a moderate amount of mail. This machine is
up 24 hours a day. The only time it is down is for power failures. It
has a UPS and appropriate software to shut it down gracefully.
Do I like SCO? No. But it is a stable platform for running business
applications.
--Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP