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