Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!labrea!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ddsw1!karl
From: karl@ddsw1.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Microsoft dropping Xenix
Message-ID: <394@ddsw1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Dec-87 17:14:14 EST
Article-I.D.: ddsw1.394
Posted: Fri Dec  4 17:14:14 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Dec-87 06:22:10 EST
References: <4610@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL
Lines: 188
Keywords: Microport, "Real Unix", Dreams, Broken promises
Summary: Microport can't even tie their own shoe, a pot calling the kettle..

Warning Will Robinson -- if you don't like combustibles, hit 'n' now!
 
In article <4610@well.UUCP> wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes:
 
#>In article <384\@sco>, amys\@sco.COM (Amy Snader) writes:
 
#>> There's just so much BS out of Microport I can stand, even
#>> though I make no claim to having an impartial opinion...
 
#>I'm sorry to say that this is hardly a professional statement; 
#>and ms snader's subsequent comments are obviously not informed ones. 
 
#>What does need to be clarified are the comments about my ending signature:
 
#>> >"Will your XENIX application run next year when Microsoft drops XENIX and
#>> > switches to UNIX? Not even Microsoft guarantees it."
 
#>> Such invective!
#>> Dwight should know better.  First "misunderstanding": that Microsoft
#>> is "dropping XENIX and switching to UNIX".  Microsoft isn't dropping
#>> anything: they are merging the two products.  What the merged
#>> product is called is irrelevant: it was as much born out of XENIX
#>> as anything.  As evidence of this, note that AT&T is 
#>> paying royalties to Microsoft for the use of the XENIX technology
#>> in the merged product. 
 
#>On the contrary, Microsoft *is* dropping XENIX and switching to UNIX.
#>They are switching from their past porting base and finally, at long
#>last (and after much resistance), starting out with real certified UNIX.
#>There's a big difference between UNIX and XENIX. UNIX V.3 has much more 
#>support for advanced technology than V.2; and XENIX doesn't even come from 
#>the certified V.2 port. Besides, if there wasn't such a big difference 
#>it wouldn't be taking Microsoft so long, and so much effort. 
 
Perhaps they are taking so long because they TEST their product.  
You guys ought to learn something from Microsoft; perhaps it would 
benefit your firm as well.  
 
I would have been much happier if we had to wait for our 80286 release
because you couldn't get it to work -- instead you shipped the buggy release
to end users and developers, and didn't even mark it *beta*.  Hell, even
your CURRENT 2.3.0 80286 binary should be marked *beta* -- it's still full
of panics!  Is the '386 release any better?  
 
#>The merged product will only contain parts of XENIX; notably support
#>for XENIX binary compatibility. The argument about the merged product 
#>being born out of XENIX is quite wrong; it will be born solely out of the 
#>certified release, and contain only selected parts of XENIX technology. 
#>Microsoft is certainly merging technologies. But they are dropping a lot 
#>of what they currently have. 
 
Dropping??  I would think that binary compatibility is the key, is it not?
They *already* are source compatible, at least in the 80386 release --
everything I have put through the compiler as a "System V machine" so far 
has worked without problems.  How much more compatibility do you want?
 
Dwight, how do you KNOW what Microsoft is doing?  They have licensed the
System V technology, this is known.  Whether they start with the release
they got from AT&T or with the current Xenix source is immaterial as long as
the end result conforms to AT&T specifications.  If you have information
which *definitively* shows that Microsoft is *NOT* using the Xenix kernel,
or quite significant parts of it, then please provide a reference.  If they
are dropping significant parts of their Xenix system which will hamper the
operating of Xenix programs, please substantiate that.  If not, then 
don't cite "facts" which have no backing.  
 
#>> What is true is that being able to run older applications has
#>> always been a key attribute of XENIX.  XENIX 386 can not only
#>> run XENIX 286 and XENIX 86 binaries, it can generate them.
#>> The philosophy of not breaking applications has been pervasive
#>> in XENIX from the very beginning, when we were careful not
#>> to break Altos applications.  Obviously, a product that 
#>> is the next generation of XENIX will put a high value on preserving
#>> the compatibility that has always been XENIX.  
#>> Since Microsoft is doing the merge, I'd expect that if they
#>> were forced to break either XENIX binaries or Coff binaries, they'd
#>> do the latter, both because there's more XENIX binaries out
#>> there and as a matter of remaining true to your own.
 
#>Sorry amy. You just aren't familiar with real UNIX technology, or
#>the effort at commercializing UNIX, which ATT is dumping millions of
#>dollars into. If you were you'd know about ATT's certification program.
#>It's a rigorous testing procedure, exercising the UNIX port inside
#>and out. And it's designed to insure that a port meets the demanding
#>standards which ATT has been working on since 1983. The merged UNIX
#>port will either conform or it won't be accepted. If Microsoft breaks UNIX, 
#>they will have to go back and fix it. There are no if's, and's or but's. 
 
If you're speaking of SVID then it's a moot point -- SCO Xenix/386 already
conforms with a very, very small list of "deficiencies" (I believe the
release notes listed three minor items scheduled to be fixed in the next
release).  None of these 'incompatibilities' have in any way affected our
operations here.
 
If you're speaking of compatibility with COFF, you're probably right -- they
will have to conform.  But, if SCO and Microsoft keep to their reputation,
it will.  Probably on the first try.
 
#>Unfortunately Microsoft is woefully lacking in a similar assurance
#>program; instead, all one has are promises from marketing. If Microsoft had 
#>been serious about maintaining upward compatibility, they would've set up a 
#>similiar certification program for XENIX. But they haven't; and there's no 
#>formal way of testing out whether 100% of XENIX binary compatibility has been
#>achieved. The only way a XENIX customer will know if his application will
#>run is by trying out the merged product. If it doesn't, he's out of luck.
#>He'll have to buy a whole new package or be stuck forever with an
#>operating system that is no longer supported. What a wasted investment!
 
Let's see the parallel.  Here I have a copy of Microport System V/286,
version 2.3.0, which panics on an average of once every 48 hours.  Making
the system unusable (until I reboot anyway).  Once or twice it has destroyed
my file system(s) after these 'panics'.  This product, unstable though it
is, is "supported".
 
SCO Xenix, on the other hand, *might* not be "supported" after Jan 1.  But
wait -- it works!  It serves my purposes, it functions, doesn't crash, etc.
Now which one would you rather be "stuck" with?
 
Note that I am currently *stuck* with the Microport '286 system -- I have
it, it's useless with all the crashes, and I have *no recourse*.
 
#>UNIX customers however can rest assured that any application which
#>uses the certified UNIX technology will run under the merged product,
#>without changes. This is the whole point behind the certification program. 
#>And it's part of the reason why ATT has put millions of dollars into porting
#>application software over to UNIX. According to Intel, there are more 
#>application programs being ported to UNIX on the 386 than any other 386 
#>operating system. ATT is not about to lose its investment here.
 
IF the Unix itself runs -- see above.
 
#>I would like to thank you though for bringing this issue up. Microport
#>is a small company, and can't go around holding big press conferences
#>that ATT has to correct later on, like its bigger competitors. 
 
Microport also doesn't seem able to deliver on what it promises.  Perhaps
this is also due to it's size.
 
#>But since you've raised the subject, I would like to use this opportunity and
#>ask Microsoft to formally guarantee its customers that their investment
#>is a sound one. And I don't mean its usual marketing hype; their marketing
#>department's ability to deliver on their promises speaks for itself.
 
Yep - they have a much better record than YOUR marketing department! :-)
 
#>In my opinion, without a certification program for XENIX they have a 
#>burden, a responsibility, to offer some sort of real assurance that 
#>their customers aren't going to be stuck with obsolete technology next
#>year. The only real assurance that I can see would be a money back
#>guarantee if they fail. Considering that their customers are gambling
#>on Microsoft's ability to deliver what they promise, I don't see why
#>Microsoft would hesitate to do this. Unless of course they don't 
#>think they can deliver on XENIX binary compatibility.
 
How about my money back for the '286 Unix release that I have dealt with
here for over a year, with continual panics and much ballyho, not to mention
paying for updates which were PROMISED TO FIX THE PROBLEM BUT DIDN'T.  Are
you going to refund my money because your firm didn't even deliver a port
which operates correctly TODAY (saying nothing about tomorrow!)
 
Besides -- who says that their product is, as of now, obsolete?  Xenix/386
is a very, very nice package -- it is a paging system, is very solid, the
compiler works well, and in general we're happy.  Happy at twice your
price.  Hmmmm... I don't feel ripped-off at all.... 
 
#>But I expect the silence to be quite deafening, and very telling. And I 
#>suspect that their customers, having made a substantial (if not overpriced) 
#>investment, will have to rise up and insist upon it before it happens.
#>So I would strongly encourage any and all XENIX customers to demand a
#>real guarantee from Microsoft and SCO. Without it, they may very well
#>be stuck in a very expensive trap.
#>
#>"Will your XENIX application run next year when Microsoft drops XENIX and
#> switches to UNIX? Not even Microsoft guarantees it. 
#>
#>Will they ever?"
 
OVERPRICED?!  My 80286 release is overpriced -- it's worth about #>5.00 (what
I could buy the blank diskettes for).  Xenix is not, by any reasoning,
overpriced.  It *is* more expensive -- but in my experience, you *DO* get
what you pay for in a microcomputer Unix/Xenix operating system.
 
 
-- 

Karl Denninger				UUCP : ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl
Macro Computer Solutions		Dial : +1 (312) 566-8911 (300-1200)
"Quality solutions at a fair price"	Voice: +1 (312) 566-8910 (24 hrs)