george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (06/05/87)
In article <368@booboo.UUCP> amir@booboo.UUCP writes: >Sure. But the version (2.0) of the toolkit did not have a working version >of ksh (as admitted by the poster from MKS). I bought the package for >vi and ksh. I got a vi that mostly worked and ksh and was not operational >at all. I expect to get a product that works when I pay for it. As I recall, a friend's copy came with a notice right up front in the manual apologizing for the absence of ksh and saying that a free update would be made available containing ksh. Sure enough, said update arrived on my friend's desk a couple months later. There is always a grey area encountered when developing a new product when trying to decide whether it is working "well enough" to ship. MKS decided vi was and ksh wasn't. It doesn't matter what you do in a situation like this, someone will think you're wrong. Would you have preferred that they shipped a buggy version of ksh also? >If you buy a radio and it doesn't work after 10 minutes don't you expect a >new (or repaired) one? I am not looking for more functional >version -- just one that works! Apparently version 2.1 does have a ksh >that doesn't have major bugs but the company has not even notified me of >its existance (I am registered user). Do they expect me to call them >(in Canada) every day to check??? Heaven forbid, all the way to Canada?! Unless you are getting rooked by Long Lines, it couldn't be that expensive to call once every couple months and say "Do you have the ksh upgrade ready?...No?...When...Thank you, goodbye". Besides, you could send a letter (you do have mail (in the US), don't you?). -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. UUCP: utzoo >!mnetor!george seismo BELL: (416)475-8980
amir@booboo.UUCP (06/11/87)
In article <4134@mnetor.UUCP>, george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) writes: > In article <368@booboo.UUCP> amir@booboo.UUCP writes: > >Sure. But the version (2.0) of the toolkit did not have a working version > >of ksh (as admitted by the poster from MKS). I bought the package for > >vi and ksh. I got a vi that mostly worked and ksh and was not operational > >at all. I expect to get a product that works when I pay for it. > > There is always a grey area encountered when developing a new product > when trying to decide whether it is working "well enough" to ship. MKS > decided vi was and ksh wasn't. It doesn't matter what you do in a > situation like this, someone will think you're wrong. Would you have > preferred that they shipped a buggy version of ksh also? > No. But they sent me a buggy version of ksh anyways! > >... Do they expect me to call them (in Canada) every day to check??? > >... "Do you have the ksh upgrade ready?...No?...When...Thank > you, goodbye". Besides, you could send a letter (you do have mail (in > the US), don't you?). First of all, I didn't mean to put down software companies in Canada. I wouldn't call anybody to ask them for an update even if they were next door. For some reason, my message is not getting accross. I got a ksh that flat out didn't work! They claim in the posting on the net that "some early shipments had bugs". I don't mind not being told about minor fixes. But when nothing works in the program and they fix it, I expect to be told. I was under the impression that they had no fixes to these problems. As severe as my problems were, I had a hard time coming up with test cases for them. That's the reason I didn't call them. I simply assumed they knew about them and were working on them (the ksh would crash in less than 10 minutes of use). I did call them about vi bugs which they fixed but I had a test case for that one. Seeing the amount of luck people have had with their version of ksh, I can simply assume that they must have a more up to date package. -- Amir H. Majidimehr Gould Inc, Computer Systems Division {sun,pur-ee,brl-bmd}!gould!amir