garvey@cmic.UUCP (Joe Garvey) (09/18/89)
Here I sit... Having just installed my new 64000UX (68000 uP) development tools.
For the umpteenth million time I had to go through by hand, to fix, and
install each manual page... yes, every single one. Why? The folks at
HP's (is it HP or just a company that uses the name) Logic System Division
simply refuse to make a man page that is compatible with HP-UX.
I've come to expect quality/innovative products from HP. In fact that's really
HP's claim to fame. If HP does it, it's ususally done right, and works well. For
this you can expect to pay a pretty penny... but then you usually pay for
what you get. When I get a high quality, highly innovative product I actually
don't mind paying (even when it's my own money and not the company's).
Then we come to that company masquerading as HP (alias the Logic Systems
Division). While I have no doubt that there are some real standout people
there, there's clearly a problem with some of the individuals in charge there.
Esp in Software QA WHEN IT RELATES TO UNIX. I've submitted and received problem
reports for the man pages... for several years now. I have to perform this
exercise every time I get an update too.
However, this time they've gotten
quit a bit worse... esp the branch analyzer man pages. It is impossible to
put these into the whatis data base. Turing the man page into an example of
nroff programming makes it difficult even to correct this. What do they
expect the customers to do... memorize every command possible? The whatis
database is a vital part of the unix man page system, and considering the
minor effort involved to create it, it is quite an elegant solution to the
problem of finding commands related to the task at hand.
Testing that the man pages work with HPUX should be required as part of the
SW QA. It obviously isn't.
To add insult to injury, I just got through figuring out why (what mistake
was made, not where it was made) BASIC-UX won't work with non-HP X-windows
implementations. They use the keycodes, and not the keysymbols. If you
use keysymbols the underlying hardware doesn't matter, if you use keycodes
then you are limited to the supported set of hardware. Result
only hardware that returns the same keycodes as an HP keyboard work. My
keyboard misses a few keycodes (otherwise I could fake it out). Dumb. Real
Dumb. How can HP create a "X windows" compatible implementation and not
test it on several other implementations of X. (If you do, then how about
adding a Visual X-19 terminal... (it's only $3k)). What about peer review?
I know X is complicated, but HP has successfully
created a great number of X applications that work fine... why not get
another division (the Computer Division, who I think is great,
despite the occasional oops :-)) to review new source code/designs.
Then, there's my favorite problem. Support for long file names. 64000UX doesn't.
Despite the fact that HP says in writing (on the update paper work) that it
is 6.2 compatible (6.2 was the first release to support long file names).
This is a change that has been known about for I long time. I'm sure a great
deal of work had to go into updating the operating system for this... being
as there are soooo many programs involved. My current understanding is that
this could really make a mess out of a system for some poor sys-op who
converted his system, because he believed what HP-LSD wrote. When is HP-LSD
going to commit to long file names (if ever)?
I won't dwell on the fact that HP's EECAD packages still run under the HP
propriatary operating system. How about porting the pieces one at time guys?
You've known X was coming for several years... its about time schematic capture
ran under X... even if the more elaborate tools don't yet. (This ain't
a QA problem, but points out that the disease runs thru more than just QA.)
Doctor, Doctor, whats wrong? Why Unix isn't Basic!! The current management
probably made a career on Basic! Why, well it was high quality, and innovative
in its day. Despite being a "Unix Bigot" (not my term some one else made this
up), Rocky Mountain Basic is the bestest basic you can get. Except its days
have passed.
If I've succeeded in laying this on several groups other than HP-LSD, good.
If you've added to the problems, you deserve the criticism too. I buy it from
the same guys, so it looks like one source to me. (No, there are many other
things I buy from other HP sales people... they just ain't got the same
level of problems).
-----------------
My thanks to the local SE's. They've pulled my *ss out of the fire any
number of times. They've been very helpful, but they can't fix the code, or
get me the source so I can. I hope this gets to the people who can do something
about it, and more importantly care to do something about it (before the
end of the millenium).
Joe Garvey
California Microwave
Sunnyvale Ca
{backbone, uunet}!amdahl!pyramid!mips!cmic!garvey
{internet}!ames!mips!cmic!garvey
------------------
My employer doesn't have public opinions. I do.ashore@hpsad.HP.COM (Alex Shore) (09/19/89)
Well, if it is any consolation, we internals have had to deal with the same problems. But we're not real customers. I personally (of course I'm not speaking for the company) appreciate you speaking up because our tools are your tools and ours don't get better until your tools get better. Of course, this note may generate more response from LSD and EDD than dozens of others I've posted to our internal-distribution-only notes groups. Also, I want to add that I am acquainted with some very good and hard-working engineers at both of these divisions, I don't fault them. I just want to encourage you to keep pointing out problems you experience because the squeaking wheel gets the oil.
is813cs@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson) (09/20/89)
In article <207@cmic.UUCP> garvey@cmic.UUCP (Joe Garvey) writes: >[... lots of other valid stuff ...] >I won't dwell on the fact that HP's EECAD packages still run under the HP >propriatary operating system. How about porting the pieces one at time guys? >You've known X was coming for several years... its about time schematic capture >ran under X... even if the more elaborate tools don't yet. (This ain't >a QA problem, but points out that the disease runs thru more than just QA.) I recently returned from some HP training courses. One of the students was an HP employee whose division was beta-testing the new version of DCS, which runs under X. Supposedly, HP's color choices are really bad. I assume that DVI be under X also. Not to miss out on a good bitch-fest, how about the algorithm used on pen plotters to choose pens? I've seen DCS switch a pen in and out 20 times on a plot! Even old EGS was smarter than that. cris -- || Gee, do you think it'd help if I plugged in both ends of this cable? || Cris Simpson Computer Engineer VA Rehab R&D Center GATech Atlanta,GA is813cs@pyr.gatech.edu ...!{Almost Anywhere}!gatech!gitpyr!is813cs
beth@hp-lsd.COS.HP.COM (Beth Vail Jones) (10/20/89)
Thank you for your comments on the HP 64000UX Development System.
It appears that your concern about man pages is correct and we will enter
a formal service request on your behalf asking for a correction for this
problem. The HP Response Centers, which you have used in the past, are
normally chartered with the responsibility to resolve these issues. To
my knowledge, we have not received a prior request concerning this man
page issue, so we appreciate your input.
The 64000UX policy on long file name support has been communicated to you
in prior correspondence. To restate our policy, the 64000 system will
operate in a long file name system but the 64000 applications themselves
do not support long file names. We do welcome the feedback of customers
like yourself to help us review and evaluate our decisions in these areas.
The remaining issues you mentioned involve other HP organizations and I
will inform them of your concerns.
Don Wick
Quality Manager
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Logic Systems Division
719-590-5910