stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (05/26/89)
In article <458@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, Greg Earle (earle@mahendo.JPL.NASA.GOV) posted a definitive statement of the patch level of Larry Wall's "patch" (from Larry's machine via FTP): > 221 devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov closing connection > mahendo:2:20 % patch -v > $Header: patch.c,v 2.0.1.6 88/06/22 20:46:39 lwall Locked $ > Patch level: 12 > mahendo:2:21 % A couple of weeks ago, I posted a note reminding all who haven't read the documentation in "patch" or in any of the updates that Larry has an automated email server which will mail you anything you need. I wasn't able to be positive about its functionality at the time, because I hadn't received a reply. A few days after I posted about it, I received the dreaded "nobody home" message one sometimes gets from the mail system: > After 5 days (97 hours), your message has not yet been > fully delivered. Attempts to deliver the message will continue > for 2 more days. No further action is required by you. > > Delivery attempts are still pending for the following address(es): > > lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (host: jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov) > (queue: smtp-ns) > > Problems usually are due to service interruptions at the receiving > machine. Less often, they are caused by the communication system. [ etc. ] But, a few days later, patch #12 showed up. Included in it was the message: > From: Larry <lwall@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> > Message-Id: <8905171900.AA16093@devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> > To: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com > Subject: patch version 2.0 patch #12 > Status: RO > ==> > [The latest patch for patch version 2.0 is #12.] <== > > mailpatch speaking for lwall > > System: patch version 2.0 > Patch #: 12 So, if you want patches for patch, or any of Larry Wall's other programs, read the sources and patches you already have, find out how to send for updates, and get them! All it takes is a minute. Just a word about the controversy over patches and updates. The group I am part of (the Measurement Systems Business Unit of Tektronix' Television Division) has a couple of products from a well-known manufacturer. One is entirely software; the other is hardware that requires software to operate. In each case, we have paid for software update services. In each case, we have had great difficulty actually getting what we paid for. In the case of the software product, we received no updates over the period of a year and no notification that our update service was expiring. When we called to ask about it, we were told that they were unable to send us the updates we had paid for because they didn't have a person's name in their data base. They did have everything needed to get a letter to us, as well as a phone number they could have called, but they didn't bother! We did (almost nine months late) receive the update information and paid for another year of software update service. We have heard nothing from them for 18 months. . . As soon as I have a week which I can spend on the phone, I will chase them down again, because one of the updates we received at the end of the first hassle works, but the more recent one doesn't. The hardware/software product also has periodic updates. When we had a problem with the hardware, we sent it to be repaired. They assured us we did *not* have the update service for it, which was why we were two software versions behind. When we provided them with a copy of the purchase order, they dug about a bit and discovered that, lo and behold!, we did indeed have the software update service! (It should be noted that in this case, they had sent us 5 or 6 updates before losing track of us.) Why do we keep buying from such screwed-up outfits? We don't have much choice if we want to concentrate on our primary goal, which is building the world's finest television test and measurement equipment. But what a contrast with the software Larry Wall and others provide us for free!!! When the first version of Perl was released, I created a simple program which crashed Perl. I mailed the information to Larry, and had an answer within 72 hours. Last week, Zoo version 2.01 looped on a truncated archive, attempting to unpack the same file 50,000 times. I emailed a note about it to Rahul Dhesi, and received a reply the same day. Please, please, please!! The quality of the software available over the net is astoundingly high! Furthermore, the level of support is much better than that found with commercially-available (and very expensive) software. Rather than whining that what is given you for free isn't perfect, count your blessings! And if you can't use it, ignore it. Go spend kilobucks for a commercial product, instead. . . Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! * new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com [phone (503) 627-1320] old: {decvax | hplabs | uunet | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever
mml@magnus.UUCP (Mike Levin) (05/28/89)
In article <5437@videovax.tv.Tek.com> stever@videovax.tv.tek.com.UUCP (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes: > >Just a word about the controversy over patches and updates. The group >I am part of (the Measurement Systems Business Unit of Tektronix' Television >Division) has a couple of products from a well-known manufacturer. One is >entirely software; the other is hardware that requires software to operate. >In each case, we have paid for software update services. In each case, >we have had great difficulty actually getting what we paid for. Part of the problem here is that a LOT of products, when being made available commercially, are aimed at DUMMIES. In other words, the company selling the software product comes to the conclusion that they are a wonderful company, selling a terrific product to a bunch of idiots who don't know how to appreciate what they've got. The 'professional' customer service folks who answer the software vendors phone when a customer calls in are, in my experience, the REAL dummies. They are people of such a LOW caliber that one has to work very hard to get DOWN to their level. > >Why do we keep buying from such screwed-up outfits? We don't have much >choice if we want to concentrate on our primary goal, which is building >the world's finest television test and measurement equipment. But >what a contrast with the software Larry Wall and others provide us >for free!!! We keep buying because we buy their BS. We believe the ads, we get sucked in by the graphics, and the fact that the head of the company walks in with his Wall Street Journal, or his copy of Fortune, and says "Hey, Joe, why don't we buy... instead of developing our own ...". And we figure he knows something, which he doesn't. >Please, please, please!! The quality of the software available over the >net is astoundingly high! Furthermore, the level of support is much >better than that found with commercially-available (and very expensive) >software. Rather than whining that what is given you for free isn't >perfect, count your blessings! And if you can't use it, ignore it. Go >spend kilobucks for a commercial product, instead. . . Here I think the motivation is that when we create something that we post to the net, we are putting it in front of our peers, rather than the unwashed masses. The folks on the net are our equals, and THEIR opinion matters a HECK OF A LOT MORE than the opinions of mere customers, who (after all) don't know anything at all. But when a piece of software is regarded as WORTHY by ..."THE NET"..., that's something to be proud of. So we sit at our terminals at 'work', reading the net, posting articles, and the customers who are calling us for some assistance with the product they purchased from us are told "I'm sorry, but Mr. xxx can't come to the phone right now. I'll have to take a message.", and Mr. xxx is free to post his article. The problem is, we're right- nobody in the commercial world will EVER appreciate the wonderful stuff we do. But then, if the customer paid out the money, and we get our paychecks, are they also obligated to pay their respects? I don't really think so, as much as my ego would like it. I just think that we should see to it that the commercial customers, who are the ones paying for the time we can spend plunking away at our favorite news group, are also happy. Mike Levin -- _ _ | | ___ ___ |_| ___ Michael Levin SilentRadio Headquarters- Los Angeles | |/ ._\| | || || \ 20732 Lassen Street, Chatsworth CA 91311 U.S.A. |_|\___/ \_/ |_||_|_| {pacbell|pyramid|csun}!srhqla!levin - levin@magnus.UUCP