hosking@convexs.UUCP (12/20/85)
> You also mentioned that we should send a copy of SPRs directly to > the Ultrix group when we either submit the paper form or call TSC. > I like the idea. Would you like to set up a seperate userid to > receive such electronic SPRs? I understand that the paper work > must also be filled out; but getting the problem into your hands > sooner improves the chances that we will see a fix in the next release. This would seem to be getting far too close to the idea of commercial use of the net. Convex has a similar means for our customers to submit bug reports and questions. We had considered using generic usenet email for this, but rejected the idea because we didn't want to use the net for blatantly commercial purposes. (You probably also don't want to send proprietary code around over something like usenet.) Instead, we have direct uucp links to many of our customers, with phone support available for those who wish (for whatever reason) not to connect their machines to the UUCP world. I would hope that others would also resist the temptation to use the net for commercial purposes. Perhaps a network of Ultrix sites could be established to pass along the bug reports without burdening the resto fo the net. Doug Hosking Convex Computer Corp. Richardson, TX {allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs]!convex!hosking
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (12/26/85)
In article <14700001@convexs>, hosking@convexs.UUCP writes: > > You also mentioned that we should send a copy of SPRs directly to > > the Ultrix group when we either submit the paper form or call TSC. > > I like the idea. Would you like to set up a seperate userid to > > receive such electronic SPRs? > This would seem to be getting far too close to the idea of commercial use > of the net. We had considered using generic usenet email for > this, but rejected the idea because we didn't want to use the net for > blatantly commercial purposes. Instead, we have > direct uucp links to many of our customers, with phone support available for > those who wish (for whatever reason) not to connect their machines to the > UUCP world. This site is paying to pass mod.computers.sun, and net.decus, even though it is neither. We pass others e-mail and vice versa. I think it is a GOOD idea to use the net to pass low-volume e-mail for bug reports. However, it is incumbent on the vendor to make sure that this isn't abused, by setting up direct UUCP links and/or regional mail gathering by willing (Ultrix) sites for insertion via direct UUCP links as the volume increases. If you're a purist, the first report from a new site contains, via return mail, the direct uucp login to use in the future. There is nothing that requires that the uucp mail carries NOT ONE SINGLE FOR PROFIT WORD. A little common sense and use of the golden rule -- mail through others as you would have them mail through you-- is in order here. -- Joel West (619) 457-9681 CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037 {cbosgd,ihnp4,pyramid,sdcsvax,ucla-cs}!gould9!joel gould9!joel@nosc.ARPA
hosking@convexs.UUCP (12/30/85)
> There is nothing that requires that the uucp mail carries NOT ONE > SINGLE FOR PROFIT WORD. A little common sense and use of the golden > rule -- mail through others as you would have them mail through you-- > is in order here. I have no real problem with your comments on this (though the gateway sites might, if 5000 PC users submitted "just this one bug report.") My main concern here is that I don't want to see the net turn into something where everybody attempts to free load off of everybody else in order to cut down on the normal expenses of doing business. If people get the idea that they can submit bug reports to vendors via the net, it's easy to keep taking things to the next logical step.... return patches or new executables via the net, etc. This could easily get out of control in a hurry if a company the size of DEC or AT&T started trying to do even limited software distribution via the net. Fortunately, I haven't seen many blatant attempts to do this sort of thing. Your idea of a return uucp login seems reasonable from a net load standpoint, though you could presumably do one better by giving out that info when the machine is first installed. This would put the support burden where it belongs... on the vendor or a user group. If the user group decides to do full blown software releases via their *own* net, who's to gripe ? You're right that the key is common sense and use of the golden rule. I'm not about to scream for the abolition of net.bugs.*, net.decus, or other such groups, even if they are indirectly commercial in nature, as long as the primary use of these groups seems to be to benefit the net as a whole instead of just one company. If everybody would use a little common sense, we wouldn't have to make an issue out of something like this. Doug Hosking Convex Computer Corp. Richardson, TX {allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs}!convex!hosking