In article <5084ep$ih3@pell.pell.chi.il.us> orc@pell.chi.il.us (Orc) writes:

> Scot A. Richardson <cma-mkt@interaccess.com> wrote: > > > >You know, I'm not too sure why there is an interest in running SAS on a > >LINUX host. Not to start a flame war, OS war, Chip war, etc, but in my > >experience, if you want to run in a production level UNIX environment, > >you just need to bite the bullet... shell out the bucks, and pick up a > >_real_ UNIX box. > > Heh. A _real_ Unix box is a machine that will run Unix. Period. > Don't flatter yourself that just because you're running a commercial > Unix on a non-IBM compatable that you're By Definition doing better. > > david parsons

Well put, David. Besides, people want to run SAS on PCs, period. Put it onto a laptop to finish their research on a deserted farm in the middle of nowhere, or whatever. Never mind that it combines the elegance of COBOL with the compactness of MVS. People are used to it. SAS Institute is strongly pushing their Windows and OS/2 versions (and, BTW, heavily discounting them for academia as long as we don't use them for administrative purposes). The question is only what OS the PC should run. Some of us who have been brought up on UNIX are being driven quite batty by any prolonged exposure to Windows... And interactive SAS can drive anyone up the wall -- needless to say, SAS/Windows can't be run in batch mode!!

Count me in among the interested in SAS/Linux. (SAS could be ported to Linux in a matter of hours, but they don't seem to want to open up a new support branch, which is what costs the money...)

-- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907