From: keith@ksmith.com (Keith Smith) Subject: Re: Is this becoming comp.linux.advocacy? Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 22:50:25 GMT
In article <EICHIN.93Aug9160931@tweedledumber.cyGNUs.com> eichin@tweedledumber.cyGNUs.com (Mark Eichin) writes:
>>> device support of SCO, Wanna compare SCO's compatibility list with
>>> Linux's?
> I hate to jump in like this, but I've got a real story here...
>SCO doesn't seem to support ethernet cards. Oh, sure, there's a long
Bullshit.
>compatibility list of network interfaces -- *one* of which is an
>ethernet card (3c503.) They've got token ring, x.25, other random
>stuff... but they don't have NE2000, or any other ethernet card that
>linux did. (I was looking for a card to use under both, because I
>actually had some SCO development to do -- and SCO simplified the
>choice by only supporting one card :-)
On the contrary, SCO supports more than 2 dozen different ethernet
adaptors _including_ NE2000 clones. This is part of a _free_ Support
Level Supplement available from SCO.
> While we're at it, how about compilers that actually work? I
>still don't have a native-tools build of Kerberos under SCO, because
>cc botches an extension from char to int, so I *have* to use gcc,
>which means that customers who rebuild from sources also have to...
There is nothing wrong with SCO's compiler. What version of SCO are we
talking about here anyway? I _hate_ this argument. SCO's compiler is
basically Microsoft-C 6.0, and is ANSI compliant. Just because it
doesn't conform exactly to the way gcc works does not make it "broken".
If it mis-compiles a statement in an un-documented way (not because of a
header declaration) then it is broken, otherwise it is simply
*different*. Personally sometimes I feel the same way about gcc :). Of
course I cut _MY_ teeth on the MS 4.0/DOS and Xenix compilers, so, I
guess it's what you grew up with huh?
> And just how many laptops does SCO support? The PS/2 mouse
>driver doesn't even work on a Dell 450 *desktop*...
A freaking TON. They added support for damn near everything under the
"sun" (hehehe). (well, on the planet anyway ...)
> And all those groups selling Linux CDROM installations... I
>wish someone would do that for SCO! (SCO + ODT == 45 floppies, and SCO
>has one of the *slowest* floppy drivers I've ever used. It may manage
>to be slower than DOS itself... linux has a very fast floppy driver
>(track buffering etc.) so maybe I'm jaded by it -- Oh Well...)
SCO Unix is available on Floppies, QIC Tape, and CD-ROM, and supports a
variety of SCSI CD-ROM devices, and more SCSI controllers than you can
shake a stick at.
> Oh, and you mentioned something about hardware drivers. Guess
>you've missed all of the people here who have gotten free hardware
>from vendors in order to get drivers written...
Yea, they do the same for SCO if the support is not native. Whoopdie
doo. There are a hell of a lot more SCO third party drivers than _ANY
OTHER UNIX_.
> Sure, Linux may not be your "conventional" market, with freely
>available source code being the norm rather than the exception. But
>we've got an environment where problems get fixed anyway... and a lot
>of people who've been burned by environments where things *don't* get
>fixed.
>
> _Mark_ <eichin@athena.mit.edu>
> MIT Student Information Processing Board
> Cygnus Support <eichin@cygnus.com>
>
>
>ps. The expression is (after macro expansion)
> switch ( (unsigned int) *(rpkt->dat+1) & ~1) {
>rpkt->dat is char*, it fetches the char into AL, then masks EAX and
>switches on that... leaving the upper 24 bits of EAX as garbage... so
>the switch always fails.
Is this the example of the broken compile? I'll test and post.
-- Keith Smith keith@ksmith.com 5719 Archer Rd. Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201 Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...