[comp.unix.xenix] Microport Strikes Again

myxm@beta.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) (02/02/88)

Just got off the phone with Microport Technical Support, and they are in
the process of changing their support policy again. Whip out your check
books, it is going to cost you to talk to these guys again...

Mike Mitchell

james@bigtex.uu.net (James Van Artsdalen) (02/05/88)

In article <15150@beta.UUCP>, myxm@beta.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) writes:
> Just got off the phone with Microport Technical Support, and they are in
> the process of changing their support policy again. Whip out your check
> books, it is going to cost you to talk to these guys again...

Oh no they don't, not before fixing /etc/cron they don't.  On the current
version of SysV/386 L-2.2, /etc/cron dumps core in /usr/spool/cron/atjobs
whenever you run a /usr/bin/batch (at -qb) job.  I've called several times to
report this bug, and have sent several pieces of usenet mail, and have uucp'd
the core dump to their system for them to look at, and deathly silence back.
At least I will something interesting to do at UniForm, if they show...

These support policies, where you have the priviledge of paying people (not
just uPort but SCO too) to figure out their own mistakes, are absurd.  I paid
for the working version the *first* time, not the broken version.  I thought
charge-as-you-go R&D went out in the late '70s in the computer biz.  Better stop
before I get too excited...

This reminds me of a .signature I saw once:

That's not a bug, that's a feature.  Did we charge you for the enhanced version?
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen    ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james     "Live Free or Die"
Work: 512-328-0282 Home: 346-2444; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746

james@bigtex.uu.net (James Van Artsdalen) (02/05/88)

In article <790@bigtex.uu.net>, james@bigtex.uu.net writes:
> In article <15150@beta.UUCP>, myxm@beta.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) writes:
> > [ states uPort is apparently getting ready to charge more for support ]

> [ my general complaint that /etc/cron dumps core ]
> I've called several times to
> report this bug, and have sent several pieces of usenet mail, and have uucp'd
> the core dump to their system for them to look at, and deathly silence back.

Well, a couple of hours after posting this tirade, I got a reply from uPort
acknowledging the core dump.  Apparently there have been other reports of this,
but not necessarily any core dumps (this point wasn't clear).  Perhaps vendors
should consider making available un-stripped versions of the binaries.

My comments on "support" policies still stand.  Microport is not alone in this,
and I understand that SCO may even be worse.  There is no harm done charging
someone who wants some help getting mailx to work with smail, but a a /bin/mail
that erroneously returns mail > 32K is *not* a feature: it's a bug, and the
original product was defective.  Don't charge money for defective products!
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen    ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james     "Live Free or Die"
Work: 512-328-0282 Home: 346-2444; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746

eric@sarin.UUCP (Eric Beser K3UHF) (02/09/88)

In article <790@bigtex.uu.net>, james@bigtex.uu.net (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
> In article <15150@beta.UUCP>, myxm@beta.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) writes:
> > Just got off the phone with Microport Technical Support, and they are in
> > the process of changing their support policy again. Whip out your check
> > books, it is going to cost you to talk to these guys again...
> 
> Oh no they don't, not before fixing /etc/cron they don't.  On the current
> version of SysV/386 L-2.2, /etc/cron dumps core in /usr/spool/cron/atjobs
> whenever you run a /usr/bin/batch (at -qb) job.  I've called several times to
> report this bug, and have sent several pieces of usenet mail, and have uucp'd
> the core dump to their system for them to look at, and deathly silence back.
> At least I will something interesting to do at UniForm, if they show...
> 
Microport will no longer talk to you unless you have a paid support
contract. I called today and got the secretary (bouncer) and was told 
that their ninty day warrenty was void the day you successfully install
your system.  I thought a ninty day warrenty was good for ninty days.
Thats what the salesman who sold me the product claimed.

I can't complain too loudly. I have gotten good response from the
help. They have sent me fixes and told me about work arounds. However,
to pay for their mistakes is sad. 

I don't think abandoning their users in a time of need is quite right. Maybe
it is time to buy their "protection." Maybe we all ought to get together
to buy their "protection." Group insurance anyone?



Eric L. Beser
Ada Technology Coordinator
Westinghouse Defense Center

usenet:  eric@sarin.uucp
arpa:    ebeser@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu

356-4037(h)
765-8008(w)