mark@motcsd.UUCP (Mark Jeghers) (03/31/89)
In article <649@icus.islp.ny.us> lenny@icus.islp.ny.us (Lenny Tropiano) writes: >In article <175@orac.pgh.pa.us> pat@orac.pgh.pa.us (Pat Barron) writes: >|>Can someone send me a list of the proper S-register settings for a >|>TrailBlazer Plus on a Unix-PC? I've tried a set of "intuitive" settings, >This is in reply to this article ... I've shar'd up a possible setup for >the UNIX PC using HDB... *** flame on NO! NO! NO! Listen folks! Some of us pathetic cretins out here DO NOT HAVE HDB! Remember? AT&T won't give it out to anyone else, remember???? *** flame off ahem, sorry about that... Now, can some kind folk out there please let us know what we NON-HDB people can do to set up Trailblazers on our 3B1's? Pleeeeeeez? (pardon my behavior today, I forgot to take my medication :-) Mark Jeghers Motorola Computer Systems
wnp@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Wolf Paul) (04/01/89)
In article <290@greek.UUCP> mark@greek.UUCP (Mark Jeghers) writes: >>This is in reply to this article ... I've shar'd up a possible setup for >>the UNIX PC using HDB... > >*** flame on > >NO! NO! NO! Listen folks! Some of us pathetic cretins out here DO NOT >HAVE HDB! Remember? AT&T won't give it out to anyone else, remember???? > >*** flame off Are you reading the unic-pc.* newsgroups? Apparently not. Otherwise you would have found out long ago that while the SHOP feature of the user agent won't let you grab HDB from THE SHOP, a simple uucp command will grab it. Like this: uucp shop!/store/STOREROOM/HDB3.5+IN /usr/spool/uucppublic/ and there you go. >ahem, sorry about that... > >Now, can some kind folk out there please let us know what we NON-HDB people >can do to set up Trailblazers on our 3B1's? > >Pleeeeeeez? (pardon my behavior today, I forgot to take my medication :-) In any case, the strings of TB+ register settings are the same for either software version, and you could just study your manuals to see where to insert them (i.e. in dialinfo) to send them to the modem. But as I under- stood the original problem (and therefore the reply you are complaining about), it was not so much getting TB+ working on the 3b1, but getting a TB+ on a remote system talking to the 3b1's OBM. > >Mark Jeghers >Motorola Computer Systems -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (04/01/89)
In article <290@greek.UUCP>, mark@motcsd.UUCP (Mark Jeghers) writes: > NO! NO! NO! Listen folks! Some of us pathetic cretins out here DO NOT > HAVE HDB! Remember? AT&T won't give it out to anyone else, remember???? ``Give it out''? No, of course not. But AT&T does *sell* it. Why, in the current environment, should AT&T ``give it out''?
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (04/02/89)
In article <290@greek.UUCP> mark@greek.UUCP (Mark Jeghers) writes: >In article <649@icus.islp.ny.us> lenny@icus.islp.ny.us (Lenny Tropiano) writes: >>In article <175@orac.pgh.pa.us> pat@orac.pgh.pa.us (Pat Barron) writes: >>|>Can someone send me a list of the proper S-register settings for a >>|>TrailBlazer Plus on a Unix-PC? I've tried a set of "intuitive" settings, > >>This is in reply to this article ... I've shar'd up a possible setup for >>the UNIX PC using HDB... >*** flame on > >NO! NO! NO! Listen folks! Some of us pathetic cretins out here DO NOT >HAVE HDB! Remember? AT&T won't give it out to anyone else, remember???? > >*** flame off Well, I'll flame right back! A lot of people DO have HDB, and HDB is the more difficult configuration to set up. If you don't get it tuned Just Right, it won't work, or it won't work globally, or it'll start behaving totally anti-socially. Unix-PC HDB also has some intriguing little bugs that need external attention, which was addressed in Lenny's posting. >ahem, sorry about that... Indeed. :-) >Now, can some kind folk out there please let us know what we NON-HDB people >can do to set up Trailblazers on our 3B1's? > >Pleeeeeeez? (pardon my behavior today, I forgot to take my medication :-) Anyways.... I have a Trailblazer configuration for Vanilla UUCP on the Unix-PC. This configuration is an older one and hasn't undergone any fine tuning in quite some time, but it _does_ work. The complete distribution is significantly larger than the HDB configuration since it includes two utilities written by Gene Olson, called `scc`, which is a shared library "front end" for cc, and `putty` which is a utility helping you make your serial line operate bidirectionally. Absolutely no warranties are provided with any of the configuration recommendations. Since it consists of, and relies on these additional tools, I could resubmit them to unix-pc.sources in parts. scc, putty and the Vanilla UUCP configuration. However, I'd like to resist that, since I'm not sure of the current version of scc and putty, and would prefer not to post outdated versions. Therefore, I'll start by suggesting mail requests. If you'd like to see my concept of a configuration, email me, and I'll send the set to you. If the volume is overwhelming, _then_ I'll post it (after I verify the versions). -- Robert J. Granvin National Information Services North Dakota: 11 months of winter and one rjg@sialis.mn.org month of bad ice skating. {amdahl,hpda}!bungia!sialis!rjg
eed_wwhh@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (William H. Huggins) (04/04/89)
In article <11398@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: >In article <290@greek.UUCP>, mark@motcsd.UUCP (Mark Jeghers) writes: >> NO! NO! NO! Listen folks! Some of us pathetic cretins out here DO NOT >> HAVE HDB! Remember? AT&T won't give it out to anyone else, remember?? > >``Give it out''? No, of course not. But AT&T does *sell* it. Why, >in the current environment, should AT&T ``give it out''? After spending 2 hours calling 4 different AT&T offices, 1-800-6358866, 1-800-2471212, 1-800-8288649, 1-800-9220354 I could find none that could sell the HDB for my 3B1. Pray tell, *who* should I contact? I call to buy it? -- W.H. Huggins ECE Dept. Home: 8894780 (voice), 8895433 (data))
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (04/05/89)
In article <1333@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> eed_wwhh@jhunix.UUCP (William H. Huggins) writes: >In article <11398@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: >>In article <290@greek.UUCP>, mark@motcsd.UUCP (Mark Jeghers) writes: >>> NO! NO! NO! Listen folks! Some of us pathetic cretins out here DO NOT >>> HAVE HDB! Remember? AT&T won't give it out to anyone else, remember?? >> >>``Give it out''? No, of course not. But AT&T does *sell* it. Why, >>in the current environment, should AT&T ``give it out''? > >After spending 2 hours calling 4 different AT&T offices, > 1-800-6358866, 1-800-2471212, 1-800-8288649, 1-800-9220354 >I could find none that could sell the HDB for my 3B1. Pray tell, >*who* should I contact? >I call to buy it? HDB for the 3b1 is NOT available. It is not for sale. It is not obtainable. It has never been released to the public in any form, with one "minor" exception. A version was once made available through The Store!. This was technically a mistake, but there you go. By posted and public policy, _anything_ obtained from The Store! is completed unsupported and use at your own risk. The Hotline, if it acknowledges it, will not answer any questions on it. Technically, HDB for the 3b1 does not exist (even though a lot of people have it :-) However, if you own or buy a Unix Source license, it _is_ possible to purchase the source for HoneyDanBer, as I understand it. But, it probably wouldn't be worth the cost for you... -- Robert J. Granvin National Computer Systems "Looks like the poor devil died in his sleep." rjg@sialis.mn.org "What a terrible way to die." {amdahl,hpda}!bungia!sialis!rjg
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/05/89)
The TB is quite usable on the 3b1 without the vaunted HDB package. I did so Dec '87 - Mar '88 until I got HDB from a freind of a freind of a freind ... etc. Only minor mods are necessary to the Hayes dialer in the modemcap file. Make a backup, and then blithely ignore the "DON'T MODIFY THIS FILE" waring in modemcap; be adventuresome. I know I posted the mods to this group about a year ago. I'll see if I can find the disk I tared my old uucp to and repost the mods.
kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) (04/09/89)
In article <11398@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: >In article <290@greek.UUCP>, mark@motcsd.UUCP (Mark Jeghers) writes: >> NO! NO! NO! Listen folks! Some of us pathetic cretins out here DO NOT >> HAVE HDB! Remember? AT&T won't give it out to anyone else, remember???? > >``Give it out''? No, of course not. But AT&T does *sell* it. Why, >in the current environment, should AT&T ``give it out''? AT&T does *not* sell HoneyDanBer for the UNIX PC. They ship the stock System V uucp with the machine, which is buggy as hell, and refuse to ship HDB, which works nearly flawlessly, because they don't want to have the extra support task. You can of course spend $3000 on sources (10 times what I paid for an entire UNIX PC!) and then do your own hacking to adapt it to the UNIX PC, unless they'd be charitable enough to sell you the already ported version. If AT&T's attitude towards UNIX PC customers is typical of their attitude towards *all* computer customers, they're going to have to start giving stuff away one of these days -- because nobody will be willing to pay to endure AT&T's contemptful attitude. (There are, of course, good people inside AT&T. But you have to dig and go under the table to reach them.) -- Karl Swartz |UUCP {ames!hc!rt1,decuac!netsys}!ditka!kls 1-505/667-7777 (work) |ARPA rt1!ditka!kls@hc.dspo.gov 1-505/672-3113 (home) |BIX kswartz "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." (Twain)
bob@rush.howp.com (Bob Ames) (04/10/89)
In article <1117@ditka.UUCP> kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) writes: > >AT&T does *not* sell HoneyDanBer for the UNIX PC. They ship the >stock System V uucp with the machine, which is buggy as hell, and >refuse to ship HDB, which works nearly flawlessly, because they >don't want to have the extra support task. I just signed up for the toolchest and that's the exact reason they attribute to the Toolchest's existance, because they don't want the extra support work. >You can of course spend $3000 on sources (10 times what I paid >for an entire UNIX PC!) and then do your own hacking to adapt it >to the UNIX PC, unless they'd be charitable enough to sell you >the already ported version. > >If AT&T's attitude towards UNIX PC customers is typical of their >attitude towards *all* computer customers, they're going to have >to start giving stuff away one of these days -- because nobody >will be willing to pay to endure AT&T's contemptful attitude. > >(There are, of course, good people inside AT&T. But you have to >dig and go under the table to reach them.) OK, everybody. If we want HDB, let's all get together and send a joint letter to AT&T saying that we'll each pay $x for the binaries. We don't need support, except for maybe a correct manual ( 1/2 |-) ) It won't cost them anything to make it available to us, we could easily handle distributing the thing - I'll bet one of us will volunteer to act as the distributor if they chose to allow us to have it for free. How much would we be willing to pay to be allowed to use this UUCP? I think $30-50 would cover it. It could be handled through the Documentation Center (Now called Customer Information Center), which already handles distributions of UNIX PC software such as the 3.0 UNIX upgrade. I consider HDB about as mandatory as Objective Programming's (203-866-6900) Objective Utilities. I've used Unremove at least 3 times in the last month! Unremove alone is worth the price of the whole package. Or smail. Or rn. How/Why should we be stuck with the stock software when it would be so easy for them to release the good stufff. Especially since the software has already been written and runs quite adequately. Further, supplying this machine with the stock uucp is a security nightmare. Oh I know, because they own it and can do whatever they want. Well, they promised us that this was the UNIX box for the masses. It seems they should support it with a decent UUCP. How many of us would buy HDB? If only 1000 people bought it for $30, it would bring in $30,000. I know of a few companies that would go right out and get HDB for all of their machines if it was available. It seems like AT&T could make big bucks by selling this thing. Please oh please please please release HDB to us, AT&T. Bob Bob Ames The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, NORML "Pot is the world's best source of complete protein, alcohol fuel, and paper, is the best fire de-erosion seed, and is america's largest cash crop," USDA bob@rush.cts.com or ncr-sd!rush!bob@nosc.mil or rutgers!ucsd!ncr-sd!rush!bob 619-743-2546 "We each pay a fabulous price for our visions of paradise," Rush
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/10/89)
If my experience is typical, not letting out HDB is costing AT&T more to support the 3B1. I bought one ofthe fire-sale 3B1's back in 1987. Here is the hardware and O/S configuration: 3B1 2 meg main memory on the CPU board (P3..P5) 67 meg miniscribe winchester rel 3.51 development set When I got the machine, was disappointed that the machine would not run for more than a day or two without crashing. Usually, the crash didn't even result in any sort of panic message or entry in unix.log; just dead. Only thing working was the mouse pointer could still be moved around on the screen. I complained vociferously to the hotline service, which I must admit tried much harder than many other vendors to be helpful. It was difficult to get "the ticket escalated" beyond the first tier of people at the hotline, however. After quite a bit of finger pointing, I removed every stitch of my own software from the system and let it run. The crashes continued. They accused my Hayes modem, which I was using because I suspected the on board modem (OBM) was problematic. I removed the Hayes modem from tty000 and used only th OBM. Still more crashing. With 2 months of my 90 day warranty up, AT&T finally agreed that the uucp implementation must be at fault. A person at the hotline agreed to uucp me a new copy of uucico, which was interesting, since that was the trouble-maker software to start with. The new uucico finally arrived, and I mv'ed it over to proper directory. More crashes. With only a couple of weeks left in the 90 days AT&T was convinced that the motherboard had to be the culprit, so they sent a person out with a new motherboard. It was their $$, so I figured, "what the heck". The new motherboard worked for about a week, then the crashes showed up again. I thought they had it with the new board. About a month after my warranty was up, a an archive file mysteriously showed up in my uucppublic directory. Upon investigation, it turned out to be the HDB package. I decided not to ask questions about where it came from. I unpacked it, and have been using it over a year. The crashes stopped completely the day I installed the HDB. Now it might just be coincidence, but I'm convinced that the uucp that comes with the version 3.51 O/S release is a complete piece of junk. HDB running on my Unix PC has been supporting heavy uucp traffic with both the OBM and a trailblazer without incident. I have no idea if my experience is typical, but if it is, if I were the hotline, I'd find out where that HDB package is, and make sure it is on that disk they're about to send out to fix the time zone bug :-). (I'm not holding my breath!) The hotline could then make the HDB basic networking utilities the one and only supported uucp for all machines. Surely supporting multiple uucp incarnations must be more expensive than one? Bill wtm@impulse.UUCP
jimmy@denwa.uucp (Jim Gottlieb) (04/11/89)
In article <950@rush.howp.com>, bob@rush.howp.com (Bob Ames) writes: > OK, everybody. If we want HDB, let's all get together and send a > joint letter to AT&T saying that we'll each pay $x for the binaries. > > How/Why should we be stuck > with the stock software when it would be so easy for them to > release the good stufff. Especially since the software has already > been written and runs quite adequately. The problem as I see it is that while the HDB for the UNIX PC is "adequate" (and definitely better than the stock stuff), it still has a major bug that would need to be fixed before it could be sold, and AT&T doesn't want to bother. This bug results in it thinking that all calls on the OBM reach carrier. On uucp calls this means that a busy or no-answer condition will result in it sitting there until it times out on login, thus making it impossible to specify an alternate number to dial by means of a second entry for that system in the Systems file. Likewise, cu(1) calls through the OBM will get you a "Connected" message, and wreak havoc on scripts that try to use cu. I don't think AT&T minds us having HDB, since it is a product that they _can't_ sell. If and when they decide to fix it (ha!), I'll send in my check. -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: <jimmy@denwa.uucp> or <jimmy@pic.ucla.edu> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy> V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454
det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) (04/12/89)
>OK, everybody. If we want HDB, let's all get together and send a >joint letter to AT&T saying that we'll each pay $x for the binaries. > >We don't need support, except for maybe a correct manual ( 1/2 |-) ) > >It won't cost them anything to make it available to us, we could >easily handle distributing the thing - I'll bet one of us will >volunteer to act as the distributor if they chose to allow us to >have it for free. > >How much would we be willing to pay to be allowed to use this UUCP? [stuff deleted] >Please oh please please please release HDB to us, AT&T. The question is, "who ya' gonna' call?" The machine has no product manager anymore! Without a PM there is no one to deal with! Whatever policy was in place will stay in place because there is no one to change it. I can try to find out if anything can be done. I can try to fight the fight from this end. Suggestions? -nsscb!det
mark@motcsd.UUCP (Mark Jeghers) (04/13/89)
In article <732@nsscb.UUCP> det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: >>We don't need support, except for maybe a correct manual ( 1/2 |-) ) >>Please oh please please please release HDB to us, AT&T. >I can try to find out if anything can be done. >I can try to fight the fight from this end. >Suggestions? Yeah. Get it released as an unsupported product. How much could *that* cost? Mark Jeghers Motorola Computer Systems
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (04/14/89)
>>>We don't need support, except for maybe a correct manual ( 1/2 |-) ) >>>Please oh please please please release HDB to us, AT&T. > >>I can try to find out if anything can be done. >>I can try to fight the fight from this end. >>Suggestions? > >Yeah. Get it released as an unsupported product. How much could *that* cost? I understand where ATT is coming from. _Nothing_ on this planet is unsupported. Right now, everyone and their mother would be excited for HDB to be released totally unsupported. "Yes, I know it's unsupported. I'll take my chances, and never ever ever call ATT about it" is an easy thing to think right now. And today it would be acceptable. But, some months from now... Someone will have questions, someone will notice a bug, someone will run into a "fatal" problem. Even though they may realize it's totally and completely unsupported, a "use at your own risk" product... well, what the heck. Call the hotline anyways. You never know. You might get someone willing to help. "I'm sorry. I cannot help you with that product. That product is unsupported." That caller is bound to get angry. At least some of them will. "Why did you _ever_ release a product that caused me problems and grief, and then won't even help me out?!" You upset the customers, and you create a hassle for the hotline. Granted, those of us here right now know the status of HDB, and we'd consciously know that we're taking the full burden of the risk, but there are a lot of 3b1 users out there who would not understand this risk, or in many cases not even know about it. It can be argued that when ATT ships the product, they include a written disclaimer with the distribution, but in reality, what's the chances of every user receiving that disclaimer? In todays world of "redistribution", those chances rapidly diminish. If it's on paper (i.e., Legal) then over time most people will never see it. If it's on disk, it's bound to get lost in some distributions, and how many people really _do_ read through all the README's that come with an installable product...? :-) I'm not arguing against the public release of HDB for the 3b1. I am for it, and have pushed for it for a number of years now, but it's not as easy as "Get it released as an unsupported product." As for the secondary question of: "How much could *that* cost?", the answer can be surprising... Just a distribution of it would entail: Media (diskette) cost. Cost of printed material (Install guide, HDB docs, disk labels). Production cost (creating the diskettes). Personnel salaries (production, distribution, initial contact). Distribution costs (mailing). Thats roughly per person. And there is bound to be activity on the hotline no matter how it is disclaimed. The only semi-cheap way to distribute this is via The Store!, but how long will that stay around? Relatedly, if the product has some notable problems (or shortcomings), especially if those problems turn out to be relatively serious bugs, then they _must_ be repaired and verified prior to release. This would require the dedication of at least one person to perform the repairs and some staff to authorize and verify it. It's not as simple as stick it on a disk and be done with it. I personally wish it were. At some point, when the 3b1 fades further away from ATT, they may just do that, but today they are not willing to take their "chances" with a product that was never completed for worldwide distribution, and while I may not agree with it, I also understand it. -- Robert J. Granvin National Computer Systems "Looks like the poor devil died in his sleep." rjg@sialis.mn.org "What a terrible way to die." {amdahl,hpda}!bungia!sialis!rjg
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (04/16/89)
In article <1366@sialis.mn.org> rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: >>>We don't need support, except for maybe a correct manual ( 1/2 |-) ) >>>Please oh please please please release HDB to us, AT&T. I understand where ATT is coming from. _Nothing_ on this planet is unsupported. ALL software on this planet is unsupported. UNIX for starters... Right now, everyone and their mother would be excited for HDB to be released totally unsupported. "Yes, I know it's unsupported. I'll take my chances, and never ever ever call ATT about it" is an easy thing to think right now. And today it would be acceptable. This is the case with ALL software we currently see. It can be argued that when ATT ships the product, they include a written disclaimer with the distribution, but in reality, what's the chances of every user receiving that disclaimer? They already do, with every single bit of software they sell. I would like to remind you that UNIX itself is disclaimed against any and every suitability for purpose, reliability, etc... Also, when you buy a support contract for software, look carefully a the words on the contract you sign. It is ALMOST ALWAYS the case that it says that you pay money to REPORT bugs, period. Many suppliers will not LISTEN to bug reports unless you pay for them to, and that is all they are prepared to undertake to do for you. In some cases a support contract may also include occasional distributions of software updates, about which no representation is made either. Please, please. Everybody should always remember that they agreed that any use of almost any computer software is done at their own risk and that they agreed that they should bear all damages and costs. Many licenses even say that the customer shall pay for the costs incurred by the supplier in defending themselves against claims of having stolen the software from a third party... AT&T licenses thank goodness don't, by the way. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (04/18/89)
> >>>We don't need support, except for maybe a correct manual ( 1/2 |-) ) > >>>Please oh please please please release HDB to us, AT&T. > > I understand where ATT is coming from. _Nothing_ on this planet is > unsupported. > >ALL software on this planet is unsupported. UNIX for starters... Gee, I've got pretty good support on my copies of Unix, and all the other software I have. This to me does not meet the criteria of "unsupported". I've even gotten support on public domain software. :-) > Right now, everyone and their mother would be excited for HDB to be > released totally unsupported. "Yes, I know it's unsupported. I'll take > my chances, and never ever ever call ATT about it" is an easy thing to > think right now. And today it would be acceptable. > >This is the case with ALL software we currently see. All released products from ATT, whether it be software or hardware is supported to at least a partial degree. You get your full implied warranty, plus you are also able to purchase a maintenance and support contract _if you wish_. While you may never see an update to these products, they are not unsupported. > It can be argued that when ATT ships the product, they include a written > disclaimer with the distribution, but in reality, what's the chances of > every user receiving that disclaimer? > >They already do, with every single bit of software they sell. I would like >to remind you that UNIX itself is disclaimed against any and every >suitability for purpose, reliability, etc... Also, when you buy a support >contract for software, look carefully a the words on the contract you sign. See below. >It is ALMOST ALWAYS the case that it says that you pay money to REPORT bugs, >period. Many suppliers will not LISTEN to bug reports unless you pay for >them to, and that is all they are prepared to undertake to do for you. In >some cases a support contract may also include occasional distributions of >software updates, about which no representation is made either. I'd suggest you start looking at other vendors. I've reported many problems and bugs to several vendors and manufacturers for supported and unsupported products alike. I've found a global willingness to listen to the problems you have discovered, and in many cases received a fix or upgrade even though I don't have a current maintenance contract. Where I may have had to pay was when requesting informational support on a product that had no conrtact. That is a reasonable thing to expect. >Please, please. Everybody should always remember that they agreed that any >use of almost any computer software is done at their own risk and that they >agreed that they should bear all damages and costs. Many licenses even say >that the customer shall pay for the costs incurred by the supplier in >defending themselves against claims of having stolen the software from a >third party... AT&T licenses thank goodness don't, by the way. Wait a moment... Please be aware of one thing... While the licenses state clearly (Assuming you have them when you copied the software [:-)] or at least read them) that you bear full risk for the use or misuse of the product, the provider does not bear any responsibility for its fitness to your needs and applications. HOWEVER, there is an implied and _legal_ obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide a product that MEETS its stated functions. If you buy a product that claims to do Task-A, Task-B and Task-C, but Task-B fails or is not available, you have full legal recourse to recover your investment (purchase price) or cause lots of hassle for the manufacturer. In this case, it's a breach of contract, and you have the legal recourses available for that (within the realms that befit software, of course). If Task-B fails because it doesn't meet your needs, but is still functional, then you lose that recourse. ATT HDB is stated to perform certain functions. The 3b1 HDB does NOT meet those functions. If ATT were to release it, they would have to make it viciously clear what this version does and does NOT do; and you still leave yourself open for problems since all of your other version DO meet those specs. I know that I myself would be very very reluctant to release a product under those conditions. Especially when the product has problems. And not totally insignificant ones either. ATT HDB for the 3b1... Is it a better product than the stock UUCP that came with the machine? More than likely. Is it less buggy or more stable. I'd sincerely doubt it. Does it solve some problems you'll get with stock UUCP? Sure, but it'll create new ones... As stated above, I support the release of HDB in any form. The version(s) that are floating around are notably stable, albeit with problems. These points are merely to explain that the thoughts that releasing the product for a "dead, unsupported" machine would cause no problems for ATT or it's users just isn't a reality. It will, but I still think it's worth it as long as everyone accepting the use of the product realizes that even installing it may affect things unexpectedly. Use of it is yet another situation. Unfortunately, as has been previously noted, there isn't even a 3b1 product manager anymore. The Store! hasn't been updated in (excess?) of two years. The only independent support currently in operation is the system support of the kernel and other related functions. Getting ATT to release yet another (Existing, even) product to the masses would first entail finding someone has has the authority to do so. Heck if I know who that is anymore... :-) -- Robert J. Granvin National Computer Systems "Looks like the poor devil died in his sleep." rjg@sialis.mn.org "What a terrible way to die." {amdahl,hpda}!bungia!sialis!rjg
mark@jhereg.Jhereg.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) (04/20/89)
In article <1377@sialis.mn.org> rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: >>It is ALMOST ALWAYS the case that it says that you pay money to REPORT bugs, > >I'd suggest you start looking at other vendors. I've reported many >problems and bugs to several vendors and manufacturers for supported >and unsupported products alike. I've found a global willingness to >listen to the problems you have discovered, and in many cases received >a fix or upgrade even though I don't have a current maintenance >contract. Where I may have had to pay was when requesting >informational support on a product that had no conrtact. That is a >reasonable thing to expect. Hmmm. Bob, I would suspect that you have not talked to the likes of Microsoft, Informix, Unify, and several other well known companies. Microsoft is the most notorious. A conversation that I had with Microsoft one time went something like this: Microsoft Tech: "Hello, Microsoft Technical Support" Me: "Hello, I would like to report a compiler bug in your Microsoft C compiler, Version 3.0" MT: "Ok. Do you have a developer support contract with us?" Me: "No. I would like to report a bug and get it fixed." MT: "I'm sorry, sir, but I can't help you unless you have a support contract. Would you like me to transfer you to sales?" Me: <getting exasperated> "No! Listen, I just spent the better part of a morning tracking down this problem which is holding up a project that is critical..." MT: "I'm sorry, sir, but I can't help you unless you have a support contract. Thank you. Goodbye." Me: "Wait a minute! Are you saying that I just spent $500 for a package which doesn't work and you won't fix?" MT: "No, sir. If you would buy a support contract then we would be happy to consider your problem." Me: "Okay, how much is a support contract?" MT: <Something about the size of Uraguya's GNP> Me: "Screw it, I'll find a work around..." Sad, but true... -- Mark H. Colburn mark@jhereg.mn.org Minnetech Consulting, Inc.
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (04/21/89)
>>>It is ALMOST ALWAYS the case that it says that you pay money to REPORT bugs, >> >>I'd suggest you start looking at other vendors. I've reported many >>problems and bugs to several vendors and manufacturers for supported >>and unsupported products alike. I've found a global willingness to >>listen to the problems you have discovered [ ... ] > >Hmmm. Bob, I would suspect that you have not talked to the likes of >Microsoft, Informix, Unify, and several other well known companies. >Microsoft is the most notorious. A conversation that I had with Microsoft >one time went something like this: Interesting. I've never had a problem with Microsoft, but then again, I've never called them up about MSC. Of course, I'll admit that Informix is driving me up the wall... "Maintenance contract? Oh, that's $495 and it gets you the update to the current release. Price of the current release new? Oh... $525, and that gets you a new manual, a new distribution and the year maintenance" or some such rot... Microsoft _does_ have an interesting concept of "technical service" though. I'm curious as to what the criteria is? In any case, I still haven't found anyone who won't listen to at least a report. Whether you ask or expect anything to be done about it may be another situation altogether, though... -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ CONFUSED: rjg%sialis.mn.org@shamash.cdc.com __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...uunet!rosevax!sialis!rjg
det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) (04/29/89)
In article <823@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >It is ALMOST ALWAYS the case that it says that you pay money to REPORT bugs, >period. Many suppliers will not LISTEN to bug reports unless you pay for >them to, and that is all they are prepared to undertake to do for you. In >some cases a support contract may also include occasional distributions of >software updates, about which no representation is made either. > Peter, This simply isn't true. First we hand hold a lot of people through stuff that is in the docs, or wierd configurations. Second, even if you buy time, if you report a true bug, and we don't have a fix for it, we do not charge you, we escalate the problem to the product manager or developers, and while it may take some time to get a patch, we do try. -nsscb!det
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (05/04/89)
In article <779@nsscb.UUCP> det@nsscb.UUCP (Dennis Erwin Thurlow) writes: In article <823@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >It is ALMOST ALWAYS the case that it says that you pay money to REPORT bugs, >period. Many suppliers will not LISTEN to bug reports unless you pay for >them to, and that is all they are prepared to undertake to do for you. In >some cases a support contract may also include occasional distributions of >software updates, about which no representation is made either. > Peter, This simply isn't true. Well, just to name names, Sun, Altos and SCO (and 95% of PC sw suppliers) seem (according to my understanding of their contracts or to experiences reported on the net) to run a support policy more or less as I have described (Sun will accept bug report by people that have not paid a support contract, but will not even acknowledge them). I was speaking in general, NOT speaking about AT&T, which has (by hearsay, I have no direct experience) a good support group, as far as I know. Even if the UNIX licence comes with all sorts of disclaimers... First we hand hold a lot of people through stuff that is in the docs, or wierd configurations. Second, even if you buy time, if you report a true bug, and we don't have a fix for it, we do not charge you, we escalate the problem to the product manager or developers, and while it may take some time to get a patch, we do try. Yeah, yeah. And I am told that you try hard. But, let me say, you do this simply on a best effort basis, out of your own good disposition. You are under no OBLIGATION to do this, even to a paying customer. The rest of the industry is often worse than that (I have seen licences, like that for BSD Unix from UCB, in which the licencee undertakes to indemnify the supplier for all damages or expenses demanded of the supplier by third parties, even for copyright or patent infringement ...). -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk