jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) (07/06/90)
In a number of recent articles in comp.sys.apollo, people have expressed their dissatisfaction with many aspects of HP's customer services, in particular with HP's attitude to security. For example, in <1407@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, root@craven.ee.man.ac.uk (Operator) "Colin" writes: >Frankly, it seems to me that Apollo's attitude towards security sucks, which >is a great shame 'cos I generally love the machines. I couldn't agree more with Colin. With a real networked file system (//), token ring, the DM, ACLs and more, Apollos have a system which could be driving most other Unix workstations out of the market (no offence to HP machines intended :-) But the company's services to customers are bad enough to cancel all this out. Some extracts from other articles appear at the end of this one. They show that there is a lot of frustration among a lot of Apollo system managers. It's not only security: other issues include non-supply of patch tapes, slow or non-existent response to APRs (Apollo Product Reports), difficulties obtaining the latest release (or *any* release) of software products, and notorious series of bugs such as in pseudo-ttys. One of the worst aspects of HP's performance is their failure to take advantage of the network. There are a few stalwarts like Ollie Jones, Peter Craine, John Vasta and Walt Weber who do respond in comp.sys.apollo and their efforts are much appreciated by me for one. But I suspect that corporate HP doesn't even know the net as a community of users exists. SUN do much better here. For example, for at least a year they have been supplying patches by ftp (for details ftp the file sun-fixes/README from uunet.uu.net). This neatly gets round the security problems of sending patches through news or mail. Of course, it means that people *without* SUN software maintenance contracts can get the patches, but apparently SUN has enough of a commitment to all its customers that this doesn't worry them. I'd like to see HP/Apollo start using the net to provide better customer services. Here are some suggestions: * HP to set up a public ftp archive containing an index of APRs, an index of latest versions of software (not the software itself:-), and a complete set of patches, say in compressed wbak form. There's no reason why it couldn't have advertisements for new products too. * Prompt response *by email* to APRs submitted by email for customers with service contracts. * HP to appoint one or more staff as Net Liaison Officers to oversee and act as contacts for the above services, and to monitor news and promptly obtain and post responses from the appropriate HP experts. I propose that we get organized and use the power of the network to encourage HP to improve things. If a good fraction of the users who read these newsgroups campaign simultaneously, maybe HP will take note and act. What can we do? o Keep posting news articles expressing complaints and ideas for improvements (if you're shy of posting send me mail and I'll post an anonymous summary). o Cajole, beg or threaten people from HP to come into this discussion and use news. o Find out more about what other companies do to support their users effectively. For example, can anybody who reads the SUN newsgroups tell us if SUN staff post responses officially, or at least more often than Apollo staff? o Think of other avenues for applying pressure on HP. For example, has anyone had any contact with CERT, the Computer Emergency Response Team, cert@cert.sei.cmu.edu? Maybe CERT can help with security issues. o Get HP and Apollo customers working together. I'm cross-posting this to comp.sys.{apollo,hp} as a start. What do users of HP machines feel about the company's services? o Develop a "manifesto" of what we'd like to see from HP, perhaps using my suggestions above as a starting point. o When the manifesto is ready, talk to or email our sales reps and other contacts within HP asking them to use their influence to implement it. (Does anybody have email addresses for people in HP responsible for customer relations policy?) o If all else fails, consider setting up our own ftp archives of useful information, e.g. old articles from this news group, lists of latest patches and software versions (taking care of HP's copyrights of course :-). I would be willing to maintain an Australian Apollo site if it comes to this. There have been flurries of complaints about HP/Apollo's performance on Usenet before, but so far they've always died away leaving the bad old status quo in place. Let's not let that happen this time. -- Extracts from recent news articles in comp.sys.apollo (ellipses in brackets [...] are mine): In <1990Jun29.150426.26943@cns.umist.ac.uk>, ran@cns.umist.ac.uk (Bob Nutter) writes: > [...] Trying to get >any sense out of Hp/Apollo these days, never mind details on an APR >that someone filed in possibly a different continent is _not_exactly_easy_ >Christ, they're not even sure about our contracts with them! I know it >doesn't resolve the issue, but how many people out there have had a >patch tape *offered* them by apollo? Do Apollo tell you about >bugs/problems? Why do more problems get sorted out here than through >manual-quoting support centres? (These are all questions someone at >HP/Apollo should answer...) In <542@ebe.eb.ele.tue.nl>, wjw@eba.eb.ele.tue.nl (Willem Jan Withagen) writes: >The problem [...] is that I and many more of the "approved" users, >are have trouble getting to the hotline. And it somnetimes takes a while for >the correct info to propagate to place outside the US of A. In <2032@cernvax.UUCP>, achille@cernvax.UUCP (achille petrilli) writes: > [...] the official channels or the >'security by ignorance' are not always the right way of handling this sort of >problems. >In some cases, you MUST go out to the net and take the risk. In <1646@tuvie>, mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) writes: >I guess the only way something will be done is by postin security problems to >the net. [...] >Also, if HP/Apollo think they can handle Apollo security problem by saying >Apollos were never intended to be secure, then we should try to force them >to enhance security by posting *ALL* problems to the net ('security by >exposure' instead of 'security by ignorance'). In <1990Jul5.142403.3942@quintro.uucp>, bep@quintro.uucp (Bryan Province) writes: > [...] Too bad HP/Apollo doesn't subscribe to the same policies that >other companies have used for years (stab, gouge, flame). -- Jim Richardson Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au ACSNET: jimr@maths.su.oz FAX: +61 2 692 4534
wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl (Willem Jan Withagen) (07/06/90)
In article <1990Jul6.015817.23710@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) writes: >In a number of recent articles in comp.sys.apollo, people have expressed their >dissatisfaction with many aspects of HP's customer services, in particular >with HP's attitude to security. Well I'm going to leave the rest of the article out. And make some remarks on the service I've been getting from Apollo lately. It has always been tedious to get anything out of Apollo before the merge with HP. No only two weeks ago, after the posting of patches by Brian Quintro and some asking around with our Apollo-office in Holland, they (Apollo) are going to mail patches to all larger sites. (Our group is not a large site, the Univeristy is, so I'll be distributing it) The point is: I was able to tell them what was there, and after some urging they were willing to do the proper thing. This thread of news is already going on for a while, and I've been Emailing with : Mike Zeleznik (zeleznik@cs.utah.edu) and the following is the lasted in our private thread: (He called some people at HP) . Turns out that HP used to, and still probably does, publish booklets . every 3 or 4 months with known problems. They were categorized reasonably . well (though I didn't see a great index, there was at least a reasonable . table of contents) and each ended with indication of the status (usually . "fixed in next release", but others too). . The point is that they DID publish known bugs, and now that Apollo is part . of them, they should do the same; ESPECIALLY since Apollo already has the . mothly patch tape procedure already in progress. . . Michael Zeleznik Computer Science Dept. . University of Utah . zeleznik@cs.utah.edu Salt Lake City, UT 84112 . (801) 581-5617 From my experience and the above text my conclusion was that Apollo is trying to improve it's performance in this area. And perhaps we should give them to more time to get things proper organised. Perhaps even an offical statement from Apollo would be wise, it would certainly be welcome. My problem is: I'm willing to do things like setting up FTP and creating a summary with patches. BUT that should be Apollo's work. It's takes a lot of time, and perhaps even aggravates people at HP. And how about those poor sods, not connected to the Internet. Our Univ. got hooked up only a few months ago. And then not everyone us Usenet going on his site. The last thing I would like to stress in this TOO LONG article is: - I'm still in favour of exposing every BUG and/or FEATURE in the system, (perhaps a little less loud on security breaks) and let as much people know as is possible. So this is my 2 penny's in this discussion, Willem Jan Withagen NOTE: I'll put the patchtape info file in our anonymous ftp, for those who missed the posting of it. FTP: eba.eb.ele.tue.nl (131.155.2.25) in pub/apollo/patchinfo.Z Eindhoven University of Technology DomainName: wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl Digital Systems Group, Room EH 10.10 BITNET: ELEBWJ@HEITUE5.BITNET P.O. 513 Tel: +31-40-473401 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands
mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) (07/06/90)
In article <1990Jul6.015817.23710@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>, jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) writes: > I'd like to see HP/Apollo start using the net to provide better customer > services. Here are some suggestions: > > * HP to set up a public ftp archive containing an index of APRs, an > index of latest versions of software (not the software itself:-), > and a complete set of patches, say in compressed wbak form. There's > no reason why it couldn't have advertisements for new products too. > Now with Domain this could be a real headache. Since chroot does not work (I guess it will *NEVER* be fixed), anonymous ftp is not so simple. Still, I remember having read an article about someone having fixed the ftp-server to be safe for anonymous ftp. Maybe HP/Apollo should start by fixing ftp themselves and distribute such a version. Would facilitate setting up anonymous ftp for Apollos, if it's available without too much of a problem. Product announcements would be nice, if they contain INFORMATION instead of hot air. I hate the colorful announcements containing information that could be summed up in two or three sentences, and I do not want to pay for the same thing in the news. > * Prompt response *by email* to APRs submitted by email for customers > with service contracts. > The idea is nice. But I would also like to be told about bug fixes and bugs that are not fixed. - Now this HP/Apollo will probably resist, because they would increase the pressure on themselves when doing such a thing, but I DO NOT WANT TO SPEND DAYS (OR WEEKS) HUNTING DOWN KNOWN BUGS!!! > * HP to appoint one or more staff as Net Liaison Officers to oversee > and act as contacts for the above services, and to monitor news and > promptly obtain and post responses from the appropriate HP experts. > I do not know how HP think about the news, but I guess some companies might not like the idea of the net. As long as we are alone, each of us facing our local sales rep. we're not nearly as powerful as the user community having access to the news is!!! > I propose that we get organized and use the power of the network to encourage > HP to improve things. If a good fraction of the users who read these > newsgroups campaign simultaneously, maybe HP will take note and act. Some managers may already panic! Let's make the rest of them fear the thought of continuing to sell lousy programs! The idea of Domain OS is great, I wish the implementation were half as good! > -- > Jim Richardson > Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia > Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au ACSNET: jimr@maths.su.oz FAX: +61 2 692 4534 I guess Sun is a good example how a company can care for its customers, if it really wants to. After all, regardless of whether the customer has a service contract or not, if the OS is lousy and has bugs, that will ruin the company's credibility of supplying good products. A bug is a bug is a bug, regardless of whether you have a service contract or not! (BTW, I always have wondered why I need a service contract to get bug fixes. Shouldn't this be part of product liability? After all, if I buy a car and find out the brakes do not work properly, they are responsible! And they will have to fix it, regardless of service contracts and the like). bye, mike ____ ____ / / / / / Michael K. Gschwind mike@vlsivie.at / / / / / Technical University, Vienna mike@vlsivie.uucp ---/ Voice: (++43).1.58801 8144 e182202@awituw01.bitnet / Fax: (++43).1.569697 ___/
dan@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Daniel Freedman) (07/06/90)
In article <1990Jul6.015817.23710@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) writes: >In a number of recent articles in comp.sys.apollo, people have expressed their >dissatisfaction with many aspects of HP's customer services, in particular >with HP's attitude to security. > >For example, in <1407@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, root@craven.ee.man.ac.uk (Operator) >"Colin" writes: > >>Frankly, it seems to me that Apollo's attitude towards security sucks, which >>is a great shame 'cos I generally love the machines. > >I couldn't agree more with Colin. With a real networked file system (//), >token ring, the DM, ACLs and more, Apollos have a system which could be >driving most other Unix workstations out of the market (no offence to HP >machines intended :-) But the company's services to customers are bad enough >to cancel all this out. > [...much deleted...] >What can we do? Unfortunately this has been going on for years, and every few months, someone gets really frustrated, and posts a message such as yours. Trust me, Apollo doesn't seem to care. As you said, a few guys obviously do care, but they have not been able to change things all that much. Lets ask a question: Why would anyone in the world buy an Apollo workstation today? 1) Price? Well, since you can buy a faster sparcstation SLC for only a little more than Apollos cheapest machine (the 2500), price does not cut it. 2) Performance? The 10000 is pretty fast, but also pretty expensive. Also, we have heard that the 10000 is more or less obsolete, to be replaced with a combined HP/Apollo risc machine. MIPS has faster machines, and a Sparc 490 is not to be sneezed at for similar or less dollars. 3) Technical Superiority? It is true that Apollos have a technically better O/S. The distributed object oriented file system is - if slow - at least innovative and functional. However, (maybe people will want to comment on this) I feel that although some features are missing or brain-damaged on Suns, you can get anything to work on a Sun that you can get to work on an Apollo. In other words, Apollo doesn't offer anything that you fundamentally can't get on a Sun. Since Suns are more open than Apollos, and since there is *much* more Sun expertise out there than Apollo expertise, the "hassle differential" between making something work on a Sun and making it work on an Apollo is greatly reduced. Technical superiority of the o/s, while an important factor in the past, is now largely irrelevant. 4) Support? I think Colin's and Jim's messages tell you all that you want to know about this one. 5) Direction? If it looked like Apollo was going to come out with some really neat stuff, then this might be a reason for not migrating away from Apollos -- for perhaps at least deferring the decision as to what to buy. However, from what I've seen, Apollo is going to continue to do in 1990 and 1991 what it did in 1987-1990 (and possibly before that too). That is, it announces hardware for 6 months from now which has slightly better performance than today's machines from other vendors. Of course, 6 months from now, the competition will be selling machines which are twice as fast, for a similar price. 6) No choice? Well, if you have made a large investment in software which uses proprietary stuff from Apollo such as d3m (the database), then you are probably stuck with it. This is probably the only good reason to buy an Apollo. However, at some point you are going to want to bite the bullet and move to something which doesnt tie you down, such as oracle. The fact that oracle may be inferior is irrelevent. You can do everything that you can do with d3m with oracle (although it may be distasteful), and once you've done it, you can move it around at will. In short, its not that Apollo has changed, its that it hasn't changed while those around it catch up. The point has been reached where other vendors machines allow you to do just as much, quicker, cheaper, and in some cases due to inreased availability of tools and expertise, better. I think it is really sad that Apollo has frittered away all of its (substantial) advantages by simply *letting* the competition overtake it. If it sounds like I'm frustrated, its because I am. I have been a faithful fan of Apollos for 4 years, having administered a netwrok of 15 Apollos in a predominantly SUN department. It used to be that I could get away with saying "these machines are better and neater than the Suns", and it would be true. Today however, the answer from our Sun users is "so what, I can do what I need to on a Sun, and it runs n times as fast". Dan Freedman U. of Calgary Computer Science Dept., 403 220-7299 2500 University Dr. N.W., dan@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2N 1N4
glass@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Adam Glass) (07/07/90)
In article <1663@tuvie> mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) writes: > Now with Domain this could be a real headache. Since chroot does >not work (I guess it will *NEVER* be fixed), anonymous ftp is not so >simple. Still, I remember having read an article about someone having >fixed the ftp-server to be safe for anonymous ftp. Maybe HP/Apollo >should start by fixing ftp themselves and distribute such a version. >Would facilitate setting up anonymous ftp for Apollos, if it's >available without too much of a problem. > A version of the ftpd that doesn't require chroot(2) can be found on: ocf.berkeley.edu 128.32.184.254 later, Adam Glass -- Adam Glass |Internet: glass@soda.Berkeley.EDU Various duties at UCB ranging from |UUCP: !ucbvax!soda!glass political to system administration. |"Ignore Reality"
jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) (07/09/90)
In <544@eba.eb.ele.tue.nl>, wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl (Willem Jan Withagen) writes: > [...] only two weeks ago, after the posting of patches by Brian Quintro >and some asking around with our Apollo-office in Holland, they (Apollo) are >going to mail patches to all larger sites. Good for Apollo Holland! So pressure *can* get services improved. But this is still not ideal: mailing tapes through the post to some sites will be more work for HP in the long run than making patches available on one FTP host so all Internet sites can get them themselves. >NOTE: I'll put the patchtape info file in our anonymous ftp, for those who > missed the posting of it. > FTP: eba.eb.ele.tue.nl (131.155.2.25) in pub/apollo/patchinfo.Z Thanks for doing this, Willem. At least I now know what problems the 9006 patch tape might fix ... if we could just get the patches. We only got the 9003 tape here because our contact in the Australian HP Response Centre kindly made an unofficial copy for us himself: I'm grateful for that, but it's hap- hazard from our point of view and inefficient from HP's. In <1990Jul6.155846.7327@calgary.uucp>, dan@cs-sun-fsd.UUCP (Daniel Freedman) writes, in the context of a heart-felt article with which I greatly sympathize: > [...] Since Suns are more open than Apollos, > and since there is *much* more Sun expertise out there than Apollo > expertise, the "hassle differential" between making something work on a > Sun and making it work on an Apollo is greatly reduced. [...] There aren't as many Apollo users as Sun users (maybe this is an advantage: the volume in comp.sys.sun is frightening! :-) But there is still plenty of Apollo expertise on the net. This and other points are well illustrated by the following: In <GLASS.90Jul6223032@avalanche.ocf.Berkeley.EDU>, glass@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Adam Glass) writes: >In article <1663@tuvie> mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) writes: >> Now with Domain this could be a real headache. Since chroot does >>not work (I guess it will *NEVER* be fixed), anonymous ftp is not so >>simple. Still, I remember having read an article about someone having >>fixed the ftp-server to be safe for anonymous ftp. Maybe HP/Apollo >>should start by fixing ftp themselves and distribute such a version. [...] > >A version of the ftpd that doesn't require chroot(2) can be found on: > ocf.berkeley.edu > 128.32.184.254 This version was developed by Sam Shen (sls@ocf.berkeley.edu) in May: there's one expert for a start. Now if HP were listening on the net, they could ask Sam Shen for permission to put his code into the Apollo ftpd distribution, and then we'd have a version which could support anonymous ftp *and* the Apollo filetype extension (see "filetype" in ftp(1)). Better still, why can't HP be "open", in Daniel Freed- man's word, and publicize the *source* of their modifications to ftpd and other widely available code? There's a precedent in /domain_examples/tcp/gated. Then people on the net could keep ftpd up to date and HP could re-import the results. Another case crying out for this is sendmail, where the latest official Apollo version is 5.52 (5/6/86): FOUR years out of date! A more open and co-operative approach by HP would benefit both customers and the company itself. Thanks to the people who've posted and sent mail supporting the "netpower" idea, especially the HP employee who's relaying some of our discussions into the in- ternal HP notes groups. I'm trying to write a first draft of a document we can put to HP. Everybody -- please keep posting your comments and complaints about HP services. -- Jim Richardson Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au ACSNET: jimr@maths.su.oz FAX: +61 2 692 4534 -- There have been flurries of complaints about HP/Apollo's performance on Usenet before, but so far they've always died away leaving the bad old status quo in place. Let's not let that happen this time.
danh@hpindda.HP.COM (Dan Herington) (07/17/90)
Just so you won't think nobody at HP is listening ...
This string seems to be aimed mostly at Apollo, but many of the comments
ring true about "traditional" HP as well. In defense of HP though, there
are reasons why they don't use the internet.
I am currently in the process of investigating ways of providing electronic
support for HP's Network Management Dev. Kit. My first suggestion was to
start a notes group - I used notes quite a bit when I was in the lab. What
I didn't realize is that the support I was getting was unsupported. I
found out that since much of the internet is privately and/or publically
funded for non-profit purposes, it is absolutely NOT kosher to support a
commercial product using the internet. Any of the questions that get
answered here are being answered by the individuals without the support of
HP - hence the obligatory "disclaimer."
Anyway, we are now looking at using CompuServe. Any comments? Would you
be willing to use CompuServe to submit questions/problems for a
programmatic product? Is there anything that you would need that
CompuServe doesn't provide?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Herington
Technical Support
HP OpenView Network Management Server
HP Cupertino Networks Division danh@hpindda.cup.hp.com
19420 Homestead Rd. (43LK) Dan HERINGTON/HP6600/UM
Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 447-2849
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This response does not represent the official position of, or statement by,
the Hewlett-Packard Company. The above data is provided for informational
purposes only. It is supplied without warranty of any kind.taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) (07/18/90)
Dan Herington of IND writes: > I found out that since much of the internet is privately and/or publically > funded for non-profit purposes, it is absolutely NOT kosher to support a > commercial product using the internet. That's interesting when you consider: - Bug reports and defect reports can be sent via email to at least: Sun, DEC, MIPS and Apple... - Software updates can be obtained via FTP from Apple.Com as well as the MIT X Consortium and others. - Many smaller companies list their email address as the *main* point of contact for their support channels, including my most recent -- and positive -- experience with Saber Software, where I reported some installation problems to "saber%saber.uucp@harvard.edu" [or something like that] and 24 hours later I had a definitive answer. Whether or not the letter of the law allows or prohibits such activities, it's clearly the case that it's the wave of the future, and that a lot of companies are realizing that electronic communication can make both customers and employees lives easier AND make the all-important turnaround time between problem report and problem resolution shorter. Even more importantly, when a mechanism like "notes" / "news" is used, the problem of communicating prior reports & fixes to the customer base comes for free (imagine; never having to search through the SSB's because you can simply type "/topic/m" and find old discussion of the topic). John Young, in his column a few "Measure"'s ago, talked about the need to lessen the turnaround time between problems being reported and their resolution getting out not only to the customer who reported the problem, but to the rest of the customer base to ensure that each HP customer has the least buggy environment within which to run their business. I think Mr. Young talked about "mission critical Unix" in the same column. Also, HP can get a bit more aggressive about this whole issue too, and, for example, offer anonymous UUCP connections for customer sites, so that they can connect to an HP machine (of which there are an awful lot around the world) and then, with a LOCAL call, get their requests/reports into the HP internal network cheaply. The email can then be internally routed to get to the appropriate mailbox without any problems of public or non-HP private networks. One reference point I recommend is reading my editorial/column on this very subject in "The HP Chronicle" (*), in The Inside Track, May 1990. I think that using CompuServe is a *VERY BAD IDEA* and not even worth the effort. if you're going to solve support problems for Unix users in the Unix community, then do it in a *unix* or unix compatible way. I can't imagine that many, if any, current or future HP-UX/DomainOS customers are going to be willing to learn how to navigate through the CompuServe system (not to mention the monthly cost and hassle). I am shocked that the possibility of CompuServe as a solution to this thorny problem has gotten sufficiently far that it was mentined in an external-to-HP posting. Can we find out what other alternatives have been considered and how CompuServe managed to rise to the top? What about other (mediocre) HP solutions like SupportLine? At least that has the advantage of being free for customers (unlike CompuServe). -- Dave Taylor (*) The HP Chronicle is an independent non-HP publication from PCI of Austin, Texas. For subscription information, please call them directly at (800) 888-5093 or (512) 250-5518. Intuitive Systems Unix Editor Mountain View, California [HP] Workstation Magazine taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) (07/18/90)
In article <4310127@hpindda.HP.COM> in comp.sys.hp, danh@hpindda.HP.COM (Dan Herington) writes: >... In defense of HP though, there are reasons why they don't use the internet. > >I am currently in the process of investigating ways of providing electronic >support for HP's Network Management Dev. Kit. My first suggestion was to >start a notes group - I used notes quite a bit when I was in the lab. What >I didn't realize is that the support I was getting was unsupported. I >found out that since much of the internet is privately and/or publically >funded for non-profit purposes, it is absolutely NOT kosher to support a >commercial product using the internet. Any of the questions that get >answered here are being answered by the individuals without the support of >HP - hence the obligatory "disclaimer." In article <1002@limbo.Intuitive.Com>, taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) replies with a list of companies which already are successfully giving support to users via the Internet, and points out that this is "the wave of the future". I'm afraid I don't see why HP interprets network use guidelines as prohibiting what we are requesting. Here is most of the file NETUSE.TXT from nis.nsf.net describing acceptable use (many other networks have guidelines similar to the NSFNET's: see ftp.math.lsa.umich.edu:/pub/emv/acceptable-use/* for some others): Interim NSFNET Acceptable Use Policy The purpose of NSFNET is to support research and education in and among academic institutions in the U.S. by providing access to unique resources and the opportunity for collaborative work. This statement represents a guide to the acceptable use of the NSFNET backbone. ... (1) All use must be consistent with the purposes of NSFNET. (2) The intent of the use policy is to make clear certain cases which are consistent with the purposes of NSFNET, not to exhaustively enumerate all such possible uses. (3) The NSF NSFNET Project Office may at any time make determinations that particular uses are or are not consistent with the purposes of NSFNET. Such determinations will be reported to the NSFNET Policy Advisory Committee and to the user community. (4) If a use is consistent with the purposes of NSFNET, then activities in direct support of that use will be considered consistent with the purposes of NSFNET. For example, administrative communications for the support infrastructure needed for research and instruction are acceptable. (5) Use in support of research or instruction at not-for-profit institutions of research or instruction in the United States is acceptable. (6) Use for a project which is part of or supports a research or instruction activity for a not-for-profit institution of research or instruction in the United States is acceptable, even if any or all parties to the use are located or employed elsewhere. For example, communications directly between industrial affiliates engaged in support of a project for such an institution is acceptable. (7) Use for commercial activities by for-profit institutions is generally not acceptable unless it can be justified under (4) above. These should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the NSF Project Office. (8) Use for research or instruction at for-profit institutions may or may not be consistent with the purposes of NSFNET, and will be reviewed by the NSF Project Office on a case-by-case basis. Now, the "support infrastructure" of many research and instruction insti- tutions connected to the Internet includes HP and Apollo computers. According to (4), it would be acceptable for HP to use NSFNET for administrative communications to assist its customers in their research and intructional use of HP computers. In fact, I think one could even interpret (4) and (7) as permitting "commercial" support by HP -- e.g., email communications to a particular customer in fulfilment of a commercial support contract -- provided the *customer's* work is "consistent with the purposes of NSFNET". A review by the Project Office might be needed to confirm this. However, now let's look at (7) itself. It states that COMMERCIAL activities by for-profit institutions are generally not acceptable. In what way is it a COMMERCIAL activity for HP to answer questions for free in newsgroups carried by NSFNET, or to provide an FTP archive accessible for free by anyone on the NSFNET? A public service with no charge to the recipient is not commercial in my book. In any case, the statement invites review by the NSFNET Project Office. Has HP made a submission to the Office for review? If so, could we be told what the Office said? Even if HP *has* asked in the past and failed, I suggest that a well structured *JOINT* submission from HP *and* interested US academic institutions could well be successful. The Australian Academic and Research Network AARNET is at present formulating policies for affiliate members, and I hope and expect that this policy will permit what we are after. A direct connection in Australia between HP and AARNET could then be considered even if US network guidelines do turn out to be as restrictive as HP seems to think. >Anyway, we are now looking at using CompuServe. Any comments? ... From Australia? You're joking. Dave Taylor has said it all here. (Sorry for the delay in Draft 2 of the "Netpower Open Letter". Hardware and newsfeed problems are my current excuse. It won't be much longer.) -- Jim Richardson Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au ACSNET: jimr@maths.su.oz FAX: +61 2 692 4534
gerwitz@.Kodak.Com (Paul Gerwitz) (07/18/90)
In article <4310127@hpindda.HP.COM>, danh@hpindda.HP.COM (Dan Herington) writes: |> |> I am currently in the process of investigating ways of providing electronic |> support for HP's Network Management Dev. Kit. My first suggestion was to |> start a notes group - I used notes quite a bit when I was in the lab. What |> I didn't realize is that the support I was getting was unsupported. I |> found out that since much of the internet is privately and/or publically |> funded for non-profit purposes, it is absolutely NOT kosher to support a |> commercial product using the internet. Any of the questions that get |> answered here are being answered by the individuals without the support of |> HP - hence the obligatory "disclaimer." If this is so problematic, then why has Digital openly solicited their Ultrix users (at the last USENIX) to send e-mail to the Atlanta Customer Support Center without any retribution from the Internet community. Apple also makes their tech notes regularly available via anonymous ftp on apple.com which is reachable from the internet. |> |> Anyway, we are now looking at using CompuServe. Any comments? Would you |> be willing to use CompuServe to submit questions/problems for a |> programmatic product? Is there anything that you would need that |> CompuServe doesn't provide? |> Absolutely not. I am a HP-UX user, not a PC user. Compuserve is not a viable option for me. Why should I have to pay Compuserve to get/give information when I already pay a hefty support contract cost to HP. HP-Support Line is adequate, but since it is on a 3000, the interface for us HPUX hackers is not what we would like to see. I think the whole problem here is that HP may not want to be a trailblazer in using the existing network facilities (i.e. taking the conservative approach). All the user community is asking is that HP be reasonable and more proactive in increasing the support level. Having dealt with some of the competition, I can assure you that they are focusing on support in a strategic way. +--------------------------------------------+ | The opinions expressed are strictly my own | | and do not represent the policies of my | | employer. At least not yet.... | +--------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Paul F Gerwitz WA2WPI | SMTP: gerwitz@kodak.com | | Eastman Kodak Co | UUCP: ..uunet!atexnet!kodak!eastman!gerwitz | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (07/18/90)
In article <4310127@hpindda.HP.COM> danh@hpindda.HP.COM (Dan Herington) writes: > > Just so you won't think nobody at HP is listening ... i know that HP is listening and i do appreciate it. > > [ ... ] I > found out that since much of the internet is privately and/or publically > funded for non-profit purposes, it is absolutely NOT kosher to support a > commercial product using the internet. Any of the questions that get > answered here are being answered by the individuals without the support of > HP - hence the obligatory "disclaimer." i am not so sure about it being "absolutely NOT kosher to support a commercial product using the internet". uunet is a commercial enterprise and there are commercial products being distributed from it to other people via the internet. i believe the restriction is really that the end customer must be using the information or service for "internet approved activities." that is, if a professor has an HP computer for a research grant, then getting information to help him/her with the research project is perfectly ok. of course, you shouldnt just believe me, or anything anyone else says, you should really check it out. talking to the folks at uunet might be a very productive place to start though. also, do not confuse "internet" with "usenet". one of the major reasons why my company (Design Data) is on usenet is because of comp.sys.hp. we are not even on the internet and there for we dont fall under any of the internet restrictions. there are many many sites in the same situation. even if comp.sys.hp/apollo couldnt be allowed, there is the biz hierarchy that is definitely for commercial stuff. if a site doesnt think it can legally transmit the biz hierarchy, then it is up to them to not carry it. > > Anyway, we are now looking at using CompuServe. Any comments? Would you > be willing to use CompuServe to submit questions/problems for a > programmatic product? Is there anything that you would need that > CompuServe doesn't provide? i know that i would not use Compu$erve. as the sysadmin and manager here at design data, i do not have time to set up another news source like that. to me, it would be much more costly than i would think that it is worth. right now, quite a few people here read comp.sys.hp. how many people would i have to set up logins on compuserve? everyone? all of them reading during prime time hours, tieing up the modems? yech. no, compuserve, even if it were free, would not be used much here. (i would imagine things would be much worse for larger sites and universities) another thing to think about is that you dont have to go only one way or the other, you can do both. there is nothing that says that you cant have a group in Compu$erve that is the same as comp.sys.hp (or biz.sys.hp, or whatever). notes/news, in my opinion, could be one of the best ways to support a large user base. i really dont think that it would end up costing HP much, but it would help out a great deal of people. it is important to realize that no, it is not a replacement for things like software service and the response center, but software service and the response center are not a good replacement for news/notes. news is good at distributing information to a large number of people and to get information from a large number of people. software service and the response center is for one on one problem solving. the response center can get you information quickly about a problem you have now. news can get you information about a problem you dont have yet, but might have in the future. news is also good for getting lots of different ideas and options to a given problem. news can also get information to people quicker than snail mail in many cases. look at it this way: does HP support user groups? what is the difference between supporting an organized user group that meets at a physical location and supporting an electronic user group? user groups are not a replacement for software support of the response center either... anyway, just random thoughts... Wayne Schlitt Development Manager Design Data
dave@dptechno.UUCP (Dave Lee) (07/19/90)
In article <4310127@hpindda.HP.COM> danh@hpindda.HP.COM (Dan Herington) writes: >Just so you won't think nobody at HP is listening ... > ... >Anyway, we are now looking at using CompuServe. Any comments? Would you >be willing to use CompuServe to submit questions/problems for a >programmatic product? Is there anything that you would need that >CompuServe doesn't provide? From my perspective, a UUCP link is vital. Is there a way to send Email to CompuServe via UUCP or is it just interactive login? Will we have to PAY for CompuServe as well as for tech support? Why not just use uucp and mail, and if you want an interactive bbs as well. Anyone with HPUX has uucp, anyone with other HP systems, could use the interactive bbs. If I had to suscribe to CompuServe to get support from HP, I would hesitate. If all I had to do was send email to get support, I would have been using the support we have Already purched 10 times as much as I do now. Of course, the harder it is to get support, the less the customers use it, hence the less it costs to provide the support. I Assume ;-) HP's strategy isn't just to make it harder on the customers. Standard Disclaimer. -- Dave Lee uunet!dptechno!dave
gerwitz@hpcore.Kodak.Com (Paul Gerwitz) (07/20/90)
In article <1273@eastman.UUCP>, gerwitz@.Kodak.Com (Paul Gerwitz) writes: |> |> In article <4310127@hpindda.HP.COM>, danh@hpindda.HP.COM (Dan Herington) |> writes: |> |> If this is so problematic, then why has Digital openly solicited their |> Ultrix users (at the last USENIX) to send e-mail to the Atlanta Customer |> Support Center without any retribution from the Internet community. |> Apple also makes their tech notes regularly available via anonymous ftp on |> apple.com which is reachable from the internet. APOLOGY---------> I checked again and apple.com DOES NOT have the tech notes on-line. Technotes are found on Info-Mac archives at various sites such as sumex-aim.stanford.edu. I guess the point I was really trying to make is that there are internet connected sites that have vendor produced 'stuff' on them. I continue to urge HP to seriously study ANY reasonable solution to this situation. +--------------------------------------------+ | The opinions expressed are strictly my own | | and do not represent the policies of my | | employer. At least not yet.... | +--------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Paul F Gerwitz WA2WPI | SMTP: gerwitz@kodak.com | | Eastman Kodak Co | UUCP: ..uunet!atexnet!kodak!eastman!gerwitz | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
eduardo@m2xenix.psg.com (Eduardo Salom) (07/21/90)
>from: eduardo@m2xenix.psg.com (Eduardo Salom)
I'm also CompuServe and BIX user, in both systems there are HP related
groups (cpus/hp3000 and hp/.... at BIX and HP at CIS) in both systems
most of the messages are related to HP printers (used by PC owners)
the messages related to HP minis are almost inexistent in BIX, at CIS
there are several HP-3000 users. At the Interex BBS almost all callers
are HP-3000 users. Here everybody is on HP-9000.
As I see there are two basic communication needs in the HP comunity:
(1) Between users, this is done quite well by this newsgroup for the HP-9000
users. I would like to see more communication between users of the other
lines.
(2) Between users and HP. Support Line accomplish its function but I'm tired
to call somebody at HP who is at a client installation or in a meeting and
when he/her calls me I'm in a meeting or in some other place so access to
the internal HP e-mail system would be an appreciated feature.
Many VAX sites are connected to DEC and use it as gateway to communicate
between them, the drawback is that you can't ask something to the group
like here. The VAX groups at BIX and CIS are many times more active than
the HP ones. Maybe the bundled e-mail systems in VAX and *nix systems have
contributed to a communication culture while the lack of them in the HP-1000
and HP-3000 lines produces isolated sites.
--
Eduardo J. Salom | eduardo@psg.com ..!uunet!m2xenix!eduardo
SoftWare Plus SA | BIX: swp CIS: [73000,74] swp@dci2sp.das.net
Larrea 1218 - 2.A | Delphi: swp VMS-Mail: PSI%07222211100717::SWP
(1117) Buenos Aires, Argentina |eduardo@m2xenix.psg.com (Eduardo Salom) (07/23/90)
>from: eduardo@m2xenix.psg.com (Eduardo Salom)
You are confusing InterNet and Usenet. These are two separate entities.
UseNet is this anarchic net composed mostly by *nix machines using the UUCP
program to communicate between them. There are other nets like BitNet, Earn,
FidoNet, etc. InterNet is a net of nets allowing the passage of messages from
one net to another. There are _some_ UseNet, BitNet, etc. nodes also
registered at InterNet. To register at InterNet a system _must_ be in another
net. You can link to or unlink from UseNet without any restriction, the
InterNet have more rules. There are commercial services registered at Internet
like CompuServe and DasNet but nobody could think that those companies aren't
making a profit from the e-mail. BIX is linked to DasNet, so I can send
messages from BIX to any user of any net o system connected to InterNet but
CompuServe. In fact the messages pass thru but it's forbidden by InterNet
because _both_ CIS and BIX are commercial and/or BIX users pay DasNet for such
service. I could suscribe and receive a BitNet list from UseNet, CIS or BIX
but in the last two cases I will pay for it in some way. BTW the BitNet lists
are like the UseNet newsgroups, the difference is that the messages go to your
mailbox.
In brief: The non-commercial restriction applies _only_ to the InterNet
traffic but not to UseNet.
No *nix users: I guess that I'm the only one around. I own a HP3000 and a PC
using the last one for datacomm but I read this newsgroup because we also do
systems programming for *nix (aside HP1000 and MS-DOS).
--
Eduardo J. Salom | eduardo@psg.com ..!uunet!m2xenix!eduardo
SoftWare Plus SA | BIX: swp CIS: [73000,74] swp@dci2sp.das.net
Larrea 1218 - 2.A | Delphi: swp VMS-Mail: PSI%07222211100717::SWP
(1117) Buenos Aires, Argentina |jsadler@misty.boeing.com (Jim Sadler) (07/23/90)
Hi My name is Jim Sadler. I'm the chairperson for Interex's HP9000 systems Improvement Committee. I'm susposed to have a direct contact into HP for this type of information. If you you are a member of Interex and would like to help improve HP's support and soft/hardware, I'd like to meet with you at the Boston Interex meeting Aug. 20-23. If you aren't a member I would still like to know what you think HP needs to improve. If you wish you can send mail to hp9k@misty.boeing.com or uunet!bcstec!misty!hp9k. I have a copy of most(all?) of this thread. I think it might be of some help to approach HP from the original direction and see if my contact from Interex can be of help. jim sadler 206-234-9009 email uunet!bcstec!jsadler | jsadler@misty.boeing.com
jfk@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jim Knight) (07/26/90)
As a former Systems Administrator type person for an HP9000 Series 855 and a current Systems Manager of an HP shop with 8 HP3000 cpus, I'd be glad to discuss any concerns about hardware/software/support with you at anytime, either through an article or netmail. I have had much better luck with the Hp support on their Commercial (HP3000) systems. When I first started using Hp equipment about 6 years ago, their response center was pretty much a joke. I could call a problem in to them and have it solved myself before I ever heard back from them (If they called back!) Nowadays however, Response center is generally quick, and accurate. If there is anything in particular you would like me to respond to directly, just let me know. Jim Knight