From: Justin Mason (jm at domain netnoteinc.com)
Date: Wed 04 Aug 1999 - 12:02:01 IST
Brian Scanlan said:
> Well. They don't feel they need to add bits onto their OS needlessly,
> most vendors like supporting everything they ship, having to support
> PERL / gcc isn't too practical. Do they think it's a bad idea? Hell no,
> Sun distribute things like gzip where it's needed, just won't
> have it in their core distribution.
> Should a commercial OS be ready-made for the generic unix user out
> of the box? It doesn't matter, they should be well capable (and relish ;) )
> setting up a box for themselves...
Life is WAY too short. It may be fun building all these things the first
few times, but after that it tires very quickly.
That's why I run Linux, 'cos life is too short to have to shell out $$$
for a commercial UNIX and then have to build everything *useful* from
scratch. I did enough of that in the old days, and believe it or not it
was worse before autoconf; I actually had to *port* perl4 to SINIX (which
was possibly the worst UNIX I've ever used).
What SCO did (eventually) was to provide a CD ("Skunkware" IIRC), with
built binaries of most of the useful free stuff (GNU tools, perl, less,
etc.) on it. That was quite a good way of getting around the "x is
supported, y is not" problem -- if you had the nous to get the CD mounted,
and run "cp -r /cdrom/whatever /usr/local/bin", then presumably you could
cop on to the idea that the software was not officially supported by SCO.
Pity SCO was such a crappy UNIX :(
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:25 GMT