brian@berner.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) (04/08/89)
'Lo, folks. Got a couple of problems & points we'd like to air. First off, for SCO's benefit, we'd like to point out a problem we've encountered with "/usr/lib/uucp/uusched" for SCO Xenix 386 2.3.2. It memory faults, then core dumps. To fix it, we grabbed the uusched binary off of our old 2.3.1 system. Works dandy. The "new", "improved", "broken" uusched of 2.3.2 is an 80386 binary; the old one is the 8086 version. We'll be firing appropriate e-mail to SCO about this, with further details. Now, here's the serious bitch: Why the hell do we have to go through a flamin' call-back telephone tag with SCO Support, getting bounced from telephone operator to telephone operator, so that WE CAN TELL THEM ABOUT THEIR OWN PROBLEMS!? Fer Christ's sake, people, we DIDN'T WANT A FIX, WE WANTED TO WARN YOU!! The wonderful person on the other end of the telephone wanted to arrange for a call-back time tomorrow so that we could talk to one of their bright lights about the problem. We aren't paid to solve SCO's problems for them, and we're sure as hell not going to sit by the phone waiting for one of them to deign to call us so that we may let them in on the problem. As I figure, since we took the time to politely let them know there was a problem, without requesting a fix or any special consideration, you'd think perhaps they might be receptive to the info. Good Lord, people! While we're in the bitching mood currently, the Express Desk isn't. And the S.O.S. Support BBS hasn't heard of 386 2.3.2 yet. Ahhh.... I feel much better now. So, remember folks: when moving from 2.3.1 to 2.3.2, KEEP the uusched binary! And if you're buying 2.3.2 straight off, GOOD LUCK! YOU'LL NEED IT! =============================================================================== __ __ Brian A. Jarvis, / ) ...berner!brian / ) Berner & Company Inc., /--< __ o __. ____ /--/ Berner Information Inc. /___/_/ (_<_(_/|_/ / <_ / ( o My dog, Goof, says "Hi!" I own only 1.5% of the company, therefore, I speak for only 1.5% of it. ===============================================================================
conan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Robert B Carroll) (04/09/89)
In article <208@berner.UUCP> brian@berner.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) writes:
....stuff deleted about SCO support....
SCO is pretty lacking in customer support. I took them 2 weeks to get
my problem(a bug in their software that i told them about) to get my
problem fixed and then the wanted me to mail them an example
of my code. Here is the sequence:
*) i find problem with there software library routine(s)
*) i call sco: "So what's the deal with this???"
(did i mention being put on hold for 15 minutes)
*) i get the usual we will call you tomm. at X time
*) i get a call saying we have to reschedule to time Y
*) they call at time Y and get all the grief on the problem
*) they say they will check out the problem and get back to me
they give me my 'special' serialized problem #
*) i don't here anything for a week
*) i call back and ask about what's going on and they say
"what's yer problem #"
*) i give them the # and they said they don't have any such 'file'
to look into the problem, so i spend an hr going through the same crap.
*) they call me the next day and say what's the problem?
*) i explain to them the problem and they say try this?
i'm standing at the terminal and i know that 'their' solutions aren't
going to work(i tried them before they even mentioned them), but i try
them anyway and tell the girl none of them work. Then they ask for me
to send them example code.
*) so i send the code(yeah, i'm sure the mail from east coast to west coast
is real speedy, like i havn't blown off enough development time already!)
*) i still here nothing for 5 more business days so i put in another call
*) they will call me the next day with the solution to 'their' software problem
I wish they would get their act together. the customer support
REALLY SUCKS!
--
-----------------------
conan@vax1.acs.udel.edu
CONAN THE BARBARIANmhlevy@sbee.sunysb.edu (Mark Levy) (04/11/89)
In article <3274@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>, conan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Robert B Carroll) writes: # # In article <208@berner.UUCP> brian@berner.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) writes: # ....stuff deleted about SCO support.... MORE STUFF DELETED # # I wish they would get their act together. the customer support # REALLY SUCKS! # What kind of support do you expect for a measley $750.00 a year??? You should get the full soft-tech package, for only about $9000.00 / yr (There is a lot of sarcasm in this posting, but in this case I REFUSE to put in a smiley face!). I have level 2 softcare for my XENIX 386 complete, and about 3 months ago, I had a problem in the link phase of compiling XLISP in the form of "invalid object module". The manual said "contact the system administrator." I am the system administrator. I calle d for help, and even sent them the offending code. I never heard anything, and to this day I never found out what the error that causes that message is. A distributer that I know does have the soft-tech support, and sometimes they will report a problem with-out any results. Over a month ago, they notified SCO about a problem in PROFESSIONAL that cost my company a $14,000.00 sale. He is still waiting for a response. In the mean time, we are afraid to sell PRO to anybody that needs to transport spreadsheets between LOTUS and PRO (the major selling point of PRO). Oh well, What can you do but hope that SCO gets their support together. I can't wait till the get X-sight (X11) on the market. Mark -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark Levy { mhlevy@sbccvm.BITNET } % DISCLAIMER??? HA!!! { mhlevy@sbee.sunysb.edu } % I admit it! Go ahead, blame me, { mhlevy@ccvm.sunysb.edu } % everyone else does!!!!
nick@aimed.UUCP (Nick Pemberton) (04/11/89)
In article <3274@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>, conan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Robert B Carroll) writes:
[stuff about SCO lack of support deleted - can't have verbiage y'know]
Well I'm going to stick up for them - at least for the folks at
genamation (machine genat), who sold me the XENIX package I have for the
386 (and earlier for the 286) - I had a lot of trouble getting the 386
running with the type of disk drive I'd selected, and they nearly bent over
backwards trying to help get it going. Which it now is, without a hitch.
I don't subscribe to SCO support, but I do give genat a call when I'm really
stuck (ie when the net link is down beyond my control :-).
Nick
--
Nick Pemberton UUCP: {utzoo!lsuc, mnetor}!aimed!nick
AIM, Inc bus: 429-1085
home: 690-0647root@blender.UUCP (Herb Peyerl) (04/11/89)
In article <3274@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>, conan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Robert B Carroll) writes: > > In article <208@berner.UUCP> brian@berner.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) writes: > ....stuff deleted about SCO support.... > > > > SCO is pretty lacking in customer support. I took them 2 weeks to get > my problem(a bug in their software that i told them about) to get my > problem fixed and then the wanted me to mail them an example > of my code. Here is the sequence: > > [LENGTHY Description of sequence cut out] Funny, your sequence of happenings is somewhat identical to the ones WE always have, some minor differences are: We're a level 2 Retailer and were told to expect hotline service. Our problem started before Christmas '88 (though call is dated January 9th.) Our problem isn't SOLVED yet. We have 6 clients who can't use an IBM 6157 tape streamer. SCO's solution was for us to buy our clients Archive Tape streamers in the meantime. (hmmmm. At only $1700 a crack) SCO closed our first problem number about 2 months ago saying it was solved, we're now on our 2nd problem number. Scathing messages from our company president to SCO's ANYONE are never returned. Calls to our EX-sales rep. were rarely returned. In the mean and between time, spread out across canada are 6 of our clients with IBM tape streamers sitting in boxes and everynight, our clients backup about 27 disks of information. We all know how reliable diskettes are. SCO keeps telling us to look forward to a solution soon. The tape streamers USED to work in V2.2.1 but don't under 2.2.3. So, it's either spend 1000's of dollars sending someone out to each site to install someone ELSE's copy of 2.2.1, or buy everyone Archive/Mountain tape streamers until SCO can get the problem fixed. Then we have 6 Tape streamers sitting around gathering dust. Final solution (the one in the works) is to DUMP SCO and get AIX for the PS/2. We only sell/install 4 SCO Xenix systems a month so we must not be burning a whole in SCO's pocket and hence aren't getting any service. Has anyone actually called someone at SCO and gotten anyone other than a receptionist? -- UUCP: herb@blender.UUCP || ...calgary!xenlink!blender!{herb||root} ICBM: 51 03 N / 114 05 W 'God knows I told her how much I hate having my feet rubbed with linseed oil!'
scf@statware.UUCP (Steve Fullerton) (04/11/89)
In article <1176@sbee.sunysb.edu> mhlevy@sbee.sunysb.edu (Mark Levy) writes: >I have level 2 softcare for my XENIX 386 complete, and about 3 months ago, I >had a problem in the link phase of compiling XLISP in the form of "invalid >object module"..., and to this day I never found out what the >error that causes that message is. I would also love to find out what causes the "invalid object module" message. I ran into this about 8 months ago and was never able to figure out what was happening. SCO Support said they had never seen it before. -- Steve Fullerton Statware, Inc. scf%statware.uucp@cs.orst.edu 260 SW Madison Ave, Suite 109 orstcs!statware!scf Corvallis, OR 97333 503/753-5382
jerry@xroads.UUCP (Jerry M. Denman) (04/17/89)
In article <2516@aimed.UUCP> nick@aimed.UUCP (Nick Pemberton) writes: >In article <3274@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>, conan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Robert B Carroll) writes: > [stuff about SCO lack of support deleted - can't have verbiage y'know] > >Well I'm going to stick up for them - at least for the folks at >genamation (machine genat), who sold me the XENIX package I have for the >386 (and earlier for the 286) - I had a lot of trouble getting the 386 >running with the type of disk drive I'd selected, and they nearly bent over >backwards trying to help get it going. Which it now is, without a hitch. >I don't subscribe to SCO support, but I do give genat a call when I'm really >stuck (ie when the net link is down beyond my control :-). This brings up an important note worthy of discussion. SCO should not have to support the entire installed base of Xenix users. This is a job for the companies who sell the product. Xenix is not a product to be taken lightly and should be purchased from a respected dealer. SCO began putting a dealer structure together that will help with the support problem. Level 2 and Level 3 resellers should be able to support users on the packages that they sell. If you Ford Truck's miss has whatstarts r Ford 's rear axle drops off in 500 miles do you call Formd or do you call the dealer you boutught the vehcilehicle from? Isn't the delaler responsable the to kepep a staff of reasonalbly train service ed service perople to help you with your vechicle? Who do you think has more sway with a software company? a) a single user of the largest installed base of any Unix OS b) a trained and experienced reseller who has built a relationship with SCO who sells and supports ten of thousands of dollars each year? Face it netland, reality dictates b to be true. This is true for any large company like SCO. Try calling Microsoft, Wordperfect (who has 2 Unix support people at last count), or AT&T themselves. While the system is not perfect, it is a far sight better than the alternatives available. Yes I work for a Level 2 SCO shop and we support our own sites. None of our customers have ever had to deal direct with SCO to get support on their system. Jerry M. Denman Director of Techincal Services Professional Data Systems, Inc. -- \ / C r o s s r o a d s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s /\ (602) 941-2005 300|1200 Baud 24 hrs/day / \ hplabs!hp-sdd!crash!xroads!jerry