cgw@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gray Watson) (04/28/89)
We are disgusted with teh Wollogong TCP-IP we have for our 3B2's. The newest version (2.1 I think) is so buggy it crawls around our machine room leaving a slimy trail. Is anyone out there in net-land running a TCP-IP product they are pleased with on their 3B2/600?!?!?! Dieing to know, gray ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Computer Addresses: | Virtual Address: gray@med.pittsburgh.edu | Office of Biomedical Infomatics cgw@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu | 217 Victoria Hall gray@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu | Pittsburgh, PA 15261 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jerry@gistdev.UUCP (04/28/89)
We also are not extremly pleased with WIN-TCP/IP on our 3B2 600.
We are currently running 2.1. About 2 weeks after we received our
copy of 2.1, I found out that 3.0 had been released. With problem
list in hand, I proceeded to ride the guys on the 1800 help line.
They ended up suggesting that we go back to the Marketing type ATT
folks and beat on them for a Warranty Upgrade. I have been since
informed that we will be receiving a free upgrade, and that the
problems I cited were fixed in the 3.0 distribution. (When I get the
3.0 cut and I can test it, then I'll believe all the problems have
been fixed.)
--
Jerry Waltz Global Information Systems Technology, Inc.
1800 Woodfield Drive
Savoy, Illinois 61874-9505
UUCP: ...{uunet,convex,pur-ee}!uiucuxc!gistdev!jerry
INTERNET: jerry%gistdev@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
PHONE: (217) 352-1165 #include <std_disclaimer>det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) (04/29/89)
In article <2703@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> gray@med.pittsburgh.edu (Gray Watson) writes: >We are disgusted with teh Wollogong TCP-IP we have for our 3B2's. The >newest version (2.1 I think) is so buggy it crawls around our machine >room leaving a slimy trail. > Listen up, cause I'm only gonna' say this once! I do network support for AT&T here at the hotline. We KNOW TCP/IP 2.1 is buggy! That's why we have about two dozen fixes for it in our database. We will continue to uucp these fixes to 2.1 customers who ask for them even though 3.0 is now GA. I've never refused to send one of these fixes yet, as no one has ever told ME that I can only send it to a customer that has a support contract. We're not going to rewrite sendmail for you, but if you call we CAN help. nsscb!det (just a little pissed off about all the bad press :-( )
danno@onm3b2.UUCP (dan notov) (05/01/89)
In article <8300016@gistdev> jerry@gistdev.UUCP writes: > >We also are not extremly pleased with WIN-TCP/IP on our 3B2 600. > My organization just received delivery of WIN/3B Version 2.1 for our 3B* systems. Could someone possbily e-mail or post a list of its bugs and/or features? I would greatly appreciate this information. Also, I am interested is finding out what patches AT&T has made available for the above problems. Once Again, thanks. danno -- Daniel Notov uunet!onm3b2!danno Ogilvy & Mather New York, NY
kindred@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Donald Kindred) (05/01/89)
In article <781@nsscb.UUCP> det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: >In article <2703@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> gray@med.pittsburgh.edu (Gray Watson) writes: >>We are disgusted with teh Wollogong TCP-IP we have for our 3B2's. The >>newest version (2.1 I think) is so buggy it crawls around our machine >>room leaving a slimy trail. >> >Listen up, cause I'm only gonna' say this once! >I do network support for AT&T here at the hotline. >We KNOW TCP/IP 2.1 is buggy! That's why we have about >two dozen fixes for it in our database. We will continue to >uucp these fixes to 2.1 customers who ask for them even though >3.0 is now GA. ... > >We're not going to rewrite sendmail for you, but if you call >we CAN help. >nsscb!det (just a little pissed off about all the bad press :-( ) I too encountered many bugs in WIN TCP/IP 2.1. In our case we discovered a few different bugs with rlogin. When I called up the hotline, they gave me a choice of no less than 4 versions of a "fixed" rlogin. Each different version fixed a different bug; no one version had all the fixes contained in the other versions. We also are encountering bugs in the socket compatibility library. Namely we get an error about a socket operation attempted on a non-socket, right after the socket had just been "successfully" allocated to us. As for AT&T not rewriting sendmail, fine; but could they please at least provide me with a working socket library so I can do it myself? In our case, the sendmail from WIN 2.1 is hosed, it doesn't work with multiple recipients on remote machines, the socket library is also hosed, Berkley's sendmail results in the socket on non-socket error, and AT&T doesn't want to give me the source to their sendmail. Net effect, I'm stuck with a sendmail that fails to deliver mail on 1 out of 3 remote destinations. To top it all off, I asked if we could automatically receive fixes. The answer was no. First we would have to discover the bug ourself, then report the bug and wait for a fix. This doesn't work particularly well in our case, we have a number of 3B2's with WIN TCP/IP 2.1. My last call to AT&T, I reported over 10 separate problems. It's painful having to discover the bug, and report it, only to find that AT&T was aware of the bug all along. There's no way to tell how much mail we simply "lost" because of sendmail. I do know that we noticed some messages weren't reaching all intended recipients. As for trying to get an upgrade to 3.0, who do I need to contact? I have already contacted my account executive at AT&T. That was three weeks ago; I'm still trying to determine the proper person to contact. I originally reported my problems with WIN TCP/IP on Jan. 6, 1989 to AT&T's Hotline. I've talked to both AT&T NJ, and AT&T Lyle IL. I'm still waiting for some of the "fixes". -- Don Kindred | Internet: kindred@ea.ecn.purdue.edu ACN, Purdue University | Phone: (317)494-0120
cgw@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gray Watson) (05/02/89)
In article <781@nsscb.UUCP> det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: >Listen up, cause I'm only gonna' say this once! I do network support for AT&T >here at the hotline. I've never refused to send one of these fixes yet, as no >one has ever told ME that I can only send it to a customer that has a support >contract. >nsscb!det (just a little pissed off about all the bad press :-( ) Listen up Dennis, cause I'M only gonna' say this about a thousand times!!!! Yeh, sure. I guess you must think that every time the people at the hotline offered us bug fixes we said no thank you, we'd rather stall our network development for a couple more months. AT&T must think that everyone of their customers has ESP!!! Is that what it takes to get real help from the hotline?!?! I bet I've called the hotline with problems and complained on the net about 20 times each and no one (NO ONE) offered any bug fixes. Sorry Dennis. I was just handed a possible alternative last week so we are going to chuck all versions of our WollyWollyGong TCP/IP in the trash can!!!!!! A BIT more pissed off then you because we have to depend on this #&^#*$!@ software, gray watson
det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) (05/04/89)
In article <11314@ea.ecn.purdue.edu> kindred@ea.ecn.purdue.edu.UUCP (Donald Kindred) writes: >I originally reported my problems with WIN TCP/IP on Jan. 6, 1989 >to AT&T's Hotline. I've talked to both AT&T NJ, and AT&T Lyle IL. >I'm still waiting for some of the "fixes". Don, I've looked up that ticket, talked to the engineer that worked with you, and sent this posting to several higher-ups here at the hotline. You and I can continue this off-line. In general, let me say this. I don't get paid to read the nets, or respond. If you want TCP/IP fixes, call 1-800-922-0354 and tell them you have a problem with tcpip. Ask for det in networking (x6336). That way I can keep my job. If enough people were to write someone here like Judy Huseman and request that someone (like me) get paid to read the nets and direct problems thus discovered to the proper problem solvers, maybe they'd do it. -nsscb!det
jerry@gistdev.UUCP (05/06/89)
As a follow up to the TCP/IP WIN/3B ver. 2.1 Blues >I have been since informed that we will be receiving a free upgrade, >and that the problems I cited were fixed in the 3.0 distribution. >(When I get the 3.0 cut and I can test it, then I'll believe all the >problems have been fixed.) Well we have gotten and installed 3.0. It appears to have fixed the problems that we were running into. I have not had a chance to test all of the things that people have complained about but our list of problems have been cleaned up. (rwho showing only local, ruptime showing only local, finger core dumping, rshl termination not returned to remote hosts, etc.) Bravo ATT! It does what you said it would. -- Jerry Waltz Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. 1800 Woodfield Drive Savoy, Illinois 61874-9505 UUCP: ...{uunet,convex,pur-ee}!uiucuxc!gistdev!jerry INTERNET: jerry%gistdev@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu ATTMAIL: ...attmail!gistqa!jwaltz PHONE: (217) 352-1165 #include <std_disclaimer>