jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) (07/11/90)
Here is a first partial rough draft of an open letter to HP. Many thanks to
all the people whose ideas in news articles and mail I have shamelessly
plagiarized without attribution.
Passages marked !! are comments by me, not part of the open letter itself.
It still needs a *lot* of work. Please post criticisms, suggestions, additions
to comp.sys.apollo, or mail them to me if you prefer. Co-operation can improve
it into something HP will *want* to act upon.
One caution: There are probably some controversial points which people will
want to take up. Let's not get side-tracked into arguments among ourselves:
our common interests outweigh any differences too much for that. It may be
better to omit controversial points in cases where we can't rapidly reach a
consensus, or at least an obvious strong majority. Of course, we don't want
to water it down too far!
<Start of draft>
OPEN LETTER TO HP: DRAFT #1
HEWLETT-PACKARD AND THE INTERNET
Background: The Internet and Usenet
-----------------------------------
The "Internet" is a very large computer network using the TCP/IP protocols and
extending over much of the world. Among the services it provides are
electronic mail, file transfer via the FTP protocol, and "network news", a
conferencing system somewhat akin to the internal HP notes groups.
Network news is divided up into approaching a thousand "newsgroups", each
covering a different discussion area. The computers within and beyond the
Internet which carry network news, the data links between those computers,
and the community of people who read the news, are collectively known as
"USENET". In mid-1990, the number of machines receiving Usenet articles was
estimated at over 26,000 and the total number of people who read some articles
at 1,109,000. [ Reference: USENET READERSHIP SUMMARY REPORT FOR JUN 90, Brian
Reid (reid@decwrl.DEC.COM), article <1990Jul2.154231.28843@wrl.dec.com> in
Usenet newsgroup news.lists, 2 July 1990 ]
Two of the newsgroups carry discussions among users of Apollo and HP
computers: these groups are called comp.sys.apollo and comp.sys.hp. It is
estimated that in June 1990, these groups respectively had 27,000 and 23,000
readers worldwide (with an unknown amount of overlap); in that month, there
were 166 articles totalling 250 kilobytes in comp.sys.apollo, and 215 articles
totalling 323 kilobytes in comp.sys.hp. [ Reference: USENET Readership report
for Jun 90, Brian Reid, article <1990Jul2.154323.29469@wrl.dec.com> in
news.lists, 2 July 1990 ]
Many but by no means all of the machines connected to the Internet are in
educational or research institutions.
Recent discussions in comp.sys.apollo
-------------------------------------
In June and July 1990, a discussion took place in comp.sys.apollo on safe
methods for distributing information about security bugs to system
administrators. This led on, first, to comments on the difficulty many Apollo
sites have experienced in obtaining copies of patch tapes from HP, and thence
to wide-ranging criticisms of other aspects of HP's services to its customers.
Many system managers and users who had become increasingly frustrated with
HP's unresponsiveness began to realize that their problem or their site or
their national HP office was not an isolated case: customers all over the
world were encountering similar difficulties.
The tone of the discussions was by no means all negative. Many people say:
I love my Apollo, BUT ...
Aspects of Apollos and Domain/OS that received particular praise included:
token ring; the object-oriented, "automagically" networked file system; ACLs
(access control lists); the Display Manager; DDE (Domain Distributed Debugger);
good compilers with good error messages; ability to run both BSD and SysV Unix
simultaneously.
There were also many favourable comments on superhuman *unofficial* efforts to
help customers by many individual HP staff, including those who are already
willing to post news articles on Usenet. It is formal organization and
policy which seem to be at fault, not the willingness or efforts of HP
employees.
!! Can we say anything about HP/UX as well as Apollo here? In the long run,
!! we will be a single community of users. There hasn't been so much ruckus
!! in comp.sys.hp lately, but I get the impression HP and Apollo users face
!! very similar problems with the company's services.
The big BUT: customer service problems
--------------------------------------
!! This section is not yet complete sorry. Here is a skeleton:
HP's failure to use the Internet and email to help its customers
HP's poor attitude to security issues
supply of patch tapes
hardware delivery problems
software and upgrade delivery problems
"closed" policy on HP modifications to publicly available software (eg ftpd)
lack of acknowledgement and response to APRs (Apollo Product Reports)
difficulties contacting telephone support (especially outside the US?)
other special or increased difficulties faced by non-US customers
...
It might be argued, as far as educational customers are concerned, that a lesser
standard of service is appropriate, given the discount levels such customers
receive and the low levels of support contract they generally choose. But
this would be to ignore the fact that many of us feel we are not even receiving
the modest level of support for which we have contracted. Moreover, at least
some of us are reasonably sophisticated system administrators, able to deal
with most manual-reference questions ourselves, only referring *really* knotty
questions to HP for advice, and sometimes able to provide solutions that HP has
not discovered itself.
!! I thought the above paragraph was important when I first wrote it, but
!! maybe it goes without saying and would be better omitted.
Steps towards a solution
------------------------
The Internet already allows users to support each other technically -- not to
mention in terms of morale. Although this certainly means great savings to HP,
it happens *in spite of* HP, not *in co-operation with* HP.
We propose that HP take steps to provide better services to its customers on
the Internet by using the Internet in an *organized and official* way. We
believe that this will not only benefit users, but will increase efficiency
and feedback and reduce duplication for HP as well.
We would like HP to set up an INTERNET LIAISON UNIT, with sufficient staff,
resources and authority to carry out the following operations:
* Organize and oversee a system whereby APRs and their HP/UX counterpart can be
submitted by electronic mail, acknowledged by return email, and then answered
by email within a reasonable time -- say two months. If a longer time is
required, a progress report should be sent say monthly.
* Monitor the comp.sys.hp and comp.sys.apollo Usenet newsgroups, and where
appropriate arrange for responses to be provided from relevant experts within
HP.
* Arrange for a mail gateway between the Internet and internal HP mail (or
publicize it if one already exists) so that customers on the Internet can
conveniently communicate with their local sales and service people.
* Set up a public archive on a new or existing HP machine connected to the
Internet, to make customer support materials available via FTP.
Details of the proposed archive
-------------------------------
The FTP archive should include:
an index of the latest version numbers of all supported software;
a regularly updated index of known bugs, e.g., a list of APRs,
perhaps similar to an on-line version of the "HP-UX Software
Release/Status Bulletin" series, with workarounds if available;
release notes for all current and beta versions of all supported
software (note that this would cover some bug reports; it would
also encourage customers to obtain upgraded versions);
a complete set of all current patches, say in compressed wbak
format in the Apollo case, with release notes (see the caveat about
security patches below);
source of HP modifications to generally available programs such as
ftpd and sendmail: this would allow us to keep those programs up
to date, enhance them, and send them back to HP (a good start in
this direction is /domain_examples/tcp/gated);
perhaps, new product announcements -- preferably technical details
not sales material.
Patches which address security problems should be included in the FTP archive
if this can be done without causing security problems in itself. System
managers of machines connected to the Internet must be particularly conscious
of security questions, and have great interest in receiving security-related
patches as rapidly as possible. However, security patch release notes should
never include any details of the problems which they aim to correct: such
details can themselves lead to breaches of security at unpatched sites. The
release notes should simply state that the patch in question is
security-related and urgent. A brief Usenet news item should announce the
addition of each new security patch to the archive.
Note that the archive would be PUBLIC, so available to all Internet users
instead of being restricted to service contract holders. There is a rival
precedent for this in the public archive of patches SUN maintains for FTP
from the Internet host uunet.uu.net. Such a service to all owners of HP
equipment would probably not reduce the number who take out service contracts
appreciably: a contract would still be needed to obtain software upgrades,
and this is probably the greatest incentive for a contract at most sites.
(There would be no expectation that HP would continue to support obsolete
versions of software through patches or buglists in the FTP archive.)
If these arguments for a public archive are not acceptable to HP, it could
consider restricting FTP access to authorized contract holders only. Frankly,
we believe that the complication involved in maintaining such a system would
outweigh the limited benefits to HP. Furthermore, the existence of a public
archive would demonstrate HP's commitment to its customers and to high
standards, and could become a major selling point.
Other points
------------
Of course, the existence of support facilities on the Internet would not
reduce HP's traditional obligations to its service-contract customers,
especially those without Internet connections. But we believe that rapid and
efficient dissemination of information via the Internet would *save* HP money
in duplicated effort, for example, in answering the same questions again and
again by telephone, and in copying and distributing patch tapes.
!! What else? We need to make this aspect attractive to HP, and I'm sure using
!! the Internet will be *much* more efficient for them in the long run.
Note: Internet guidelines would prohibit HP use of the Internet for its
commercial purposes (for example, advertising or billing). But this does not
exclude HP customers from using the net to obtain information from HP to
further our own purposes -- academic, research, etc.
Conclusion
----------
!! Draw your own and post it!
Disclaimer
----------
This document was written collectively, and while all signatories support its
aims and general thrust, not everyone is necessarily in complete agreement on
the details of all points. The views expressed are those of individuals, and
do not in general represent official policy of the institutions or companies
of which the signatories are members. (This should not be taken as a licence
to discount those views, however: in the long run the individual views of
computer users and system managers tend to affect or even determine
institutional computing policy and purchasing decisions.)
Signatories
-----------
!! It would be good to have a long list of names here. But don't send your
!! name yet ... it might turn out you won't want your name on the final
!! version! In the meantime you might like to prepare a signature, perhaps
!! based on your usual net signature but with some additional info and brief
!! personal comments, to a total of no more than say 10 lines. Mine would
!! look something like this:
(Dr) Jim Richardson, Computer Systems Officer
Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au Phone: +61 2 692 2232 FAX: +61 2 692 4534
-- The University's Mathematics Departments have an Apollo DN10010 and
about 130 Apollo workstations. Our particular concerns include prompt
response to APRs via email, and our perception that communications be-
tween HP's Australian and US offices are poor on service issues.
<End of draft>
!! We will have to think about how to deliver it to HP, but that can wait
!! for a bit.
!! I have used "spell -b" except I prefer -ize to -ise and "program" to
!! "programme". (Why doesn't it like "totalling" and "signatories"?)
--
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 4534mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) (07/11/90)
In article <1990Jul11.124826.22519@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>, jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) writes: > [...] > the modest level of support for which we have contracted. Moreover, at least > some of us are reasonably sophisticated system administrators, able to deal > with most manual-reference questions ourselves, only referring *really* knotty > questions to HP for advice, and sometimes able to provide solutions that HP has > not discovered itself. > > !! I thought the above paragraph was important when I first wrote it, but > !! maybe it goes without saying and would be better omitted. > I think we should leave it in. At times, we have been told that Apollos are fine and everything works OK and that we are too stupid to install, maintain and use the system because we have never taken part in the courses HP/Apollo offer. > !! What else? We need to make this aspect attractive to HP, and I'm sure using > !! the Internet will be *much* more efficient for them in the long run. > It might acually be a major selling point for HP. One reason Suns are so popular is because you can get information fast and easy. 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 ___/
wunder@hp-ses.SDE.HP.COM (Walter Underwood) (07/12/90)
Note: Internet guidelines would prohibit HP use of the Internet for its commercial purposes (for example, advertising or billing). But this does not exclude HP customers from using the net to obtain information from HP to further our own purposes -- academic, research, etc. Worse than that. We might be able to provide information to academic and research institutions, and to provide services over e-mail and FTP that are already available by other means. If it is significantly better than the service available via other means, then it is probably NOT the same service. We want to be responsive to customers, but we can't do it by breaking the rules. HP just doesn't work that way. The most likely transport is one of the new commercial IP networks: ALTERNET or PSI. Those are coming along, but don't yet have the coverage needed. On the other hand, we can do some things over the research networks, and we need to move quickly on electonic support. One good way to have an effect is to say "I want support in my native environment, TCP/IP, e-mail, etc. X.25 and modems does not cut it." Explain how much more it would be worth to you, how much time it would save at your site, what other vendors are doing, then sign it and send it in. Try to be constructive and quantitative -- what response time will make you happy, what kind of feedback you want about progress on defects (what release, when), etc. wunder