From: walterm@iat.holonet.net (Walter D. Montalvo) Subject: Installation: SLS vs SCO Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 00:17:09 GMT A week or two ago, there was a discussion that the SLS installation was a bit complicated for DOS users to use. The counter-argument was that the SLS installation IS easy to use and packages a tremendous amount of software. The installation procedure of SCO was mentioned at some point, implying that SCO had to learn from the SLS distribution. Questions is, does someone have experience installing both distributions? How do they compare installation-wise? If the installation of SLS is "better" than SCO, more admiration for Peter's work. (Peter, thanks for making Linux so available to us newbies).
From: walterm@iat.holonet.net (Walter D. Montalvo) Subject: Re: Installation: SLS vs SCO Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 05:09:06 GMT I should add that I have completed installing the full SLS distribution on my PC (using kermit right now) and have found it pretty easy to use. Since I have no experience installing SCO, I am curious about the installation procedure. Not that I would lean towards SCO. Linux is VERY gratifying. :)
From: felixg@coop.com (Felix Gallo) Subject: Re: Installation: SLS vs SCO Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 15:24:40 GMT walterm@iat.holonet.net (Walter D. Montalvo) writes: >I should add that I have completed installing the full SLS distribution >on my PC (using kermit right now) and have found it pretty easy to use. >Since I have no experience installing SCO, I am curious about the >installation procedure. Not that I would lean towards SCO. >Linux is VERY gratifying. :) SCO has several products. The most widely used is probably UNIX 3.2.4.1, which has no X11 included. I've installed via SLS about three times and via SCO 3.2.4.1 about eighty times. There's no question in my mind that SCO's install package is a lot easier to use and understand than the SLS package; both require a minimum of knowledge concerning UNIX (you have to know what a partition is), but under SCO you don't have to type anything or figure out any block numbers. Installing, removing and upgrading packages is done by a single text-graphical utility which shares interface guidelines with all of the other administrative functions in the system. SCO's install makes the right choices most of the time, and the documentation is very complete. Their X11 product, ODT, is also insanely easy to install. One selects a driver and wham, you're in like flynn. SCO's even appropriated xdm and a graphical pseudodesktop to make running X11 as easy as watching television. There is no fiddling with dot clocks. Peter's just one guy working pretty much alone -- SCO is composed of a metric ton of talented UNIX professionals. It's hobbyist idealism to say that SLS is better than SCO. One does tend to pay a price for the superior tools that SCO offers, however, and in SCO's case, that price is somewhat high for people who want networking, compilers, X11 and the whole kit and caboodle. If you're going to run SCO, you'd better have a better reason than "the install procedure is better." DISCLAIMER: in my case, the reason is that people give me what I consider a large sum of money to work for them as a Systems Analyst, and those people run a company which is a major SCO VAR.
From: pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald) Subject: Re: Installation: SLS vs SCO Date: Wed, 31 Mar 93 05:42:57 GMT >at some point, implying that SCO had to learn from the SLS distribution. > >Questions is, does someone have experience installing both distributions? >How do they compare installation-wise? Well, I must admit: I have experience installing SCO, ISC, and DELL. This experience colored my design of the SLS install towards flexibility rather than functionality. I wasn't pleased by the straightjacket like install programs. > >If the installation of SLS is "better" than SCO, more admiration >for Peter's work. (Peter, thanks for making Linux so available >to us newbies). > I accept you thanks on behalf of: Linus, hlu, david, orest, werner, eric, dirk, remy, ted, ... :-) Peter