Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!pbox!romed!pete From: pete@romed.UUCP (Pete Rourke) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: Microsoft dropping Xenix Message-ID: <187@romed.UUCP> Date: Sat, 5-Dec-87 14:10:27 EST Article-I.D.: romed.187 Posted: Sat Dec 5 14:10:27 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 10-Dec-87 20:02:16 EST References: <4610@well.UUCP> <859@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Reply-To: pete@romed.UUCP (Pete Rourke) Organization: Romed Research, Tulsa,OK Lines: 25 Keywords: Microport BROKEN Unix In article <859@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> rich@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Richard Pettit) writes: >In article <4610@well.UUCP> wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes: > >>on Microsoft's ability to deliver what they promise, I don't see why > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>port will either conform or it won't be accepted. If Microsoft breaks UNIX, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Do you hear this net.land ? The VP of engineering for MICROPORT >complaining about marketing departments advertising what they cannot >Try curbing your own dog before you complain about your neighbors'. > Hear Hear!! Microport VP (nothing better to do?) Microsoft Software Engineer have both responed. Let's open a news group called vendor.rock.throwers that I can unsubscribe to, and let's get on to the technical discussions. I came here to learn, not listen to petty vendor arguments. Vendors are welcome to offer suggestions to work-arounds and such, but name calling and poor taste >> /dev/null pete disclaimers << /dev/null