wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) (12/24/87)
I'm glad to finally see some activity in comp.unix.xenix! And to
think I was worried that creating comp.unix.microport would make things
dull around here!
My .signature has certainly stirred up one of the more lively discussions
in this newsgroup. But it's a shame much of it has been wasted in flames
while my original points seem to have been forgotten, and not dealt with.
I've entitled this the "second to last" posting as I don't intend to
continue discussing it further here. My last posting will be to extend my
congratulations when a real guarantee on XENIX binary compatibility
has been offered. Until then, I have nothing further to add. However I would
like to redirect the discussions dealing with Microport to where they would be
most welcome, and serve some real use; namely Microport's BBS. This is now
open to everyone, not just Microport customers. An announcement about it and
our BIX conferencing has been posted to comp.unix.microport.
Since some folks have taken issue with my .signature, I will also drop it
when I'm in this newsgroup.
I've waited patiently these past couple weeks for an official response to my
previous points. But there's been nothing. The closest comments came from two
Microsoft employees, and neither made clear their authority to act as
an official spokesperson. Nor was a program guaranteeing XENIX binary
compatibility offered.
Instead, many people have chosen to respond with various flames.
These have done more than just warm up everyone's computers
during the holidays; they have also distracted the discussion.
Let me respond briefly by saying that many were addressed a couple months
ago by Microport's President, and in this newsgroup. The results of
these efforts have been seen over the past month; and many points
brought up here have been resolved from them. But not everything;
nor will there ever be an end to what I personally consider valuable
customer input.
We believed this back in October and it's one reason why we extended
our USENET communication then; and have since brought up our BBS and BIX
conferences over the past month. If you really want to contact the people
involved with Microport, there is now a great opportunity for you to do so.
I encourage you to explore these new services! I believe you will find
that Microport has a far greater majority of satisfied customers than
the appearance of a few vocal people may have you believe. Witness our
nomination on the WELL for best software of the year, along with Locus,
by Dave Hughes.
Putting aside the flames and religious issues, the original point was about
XENIX binary compatibility. This is a subject impacting many people in the
UNIX industry; I've personally seen a great deal of confusion about it.
As recently as October I surprised an editor with the "news" that the merged
port will be available to everyone; no one has on exclusive on it.
Working for a large technical weekly paper, his impressions are a reflection
on the industry. Indeed, much confusion has even been seen in this newsgroup.
Which is one reason why I felt obligated earlier to clarify some of the
numerous misunderstandings about ATT's effort at commercializing UNIX, the
merged UNIX/XENIX product, and to point out that there isn't any formal
guarantee program with XENIX compatibility. Just the word "guarantee" has
been stated; which is more of a commitment to the future than it is
insurance on the delivery of next year's product. Several people rightfully
pointed out Microsoft's commitment to customers over the long term. But
insuring 100% binary compatibility next year, without a XENIX certification
program in place, was the issue.
So I leave the discussion with this point unresolved. I brought this
up here because it affects not just XENIX users but UNIX users as well,
myself included. The length of the program speaks of the effort involved;
and I personally have a vested interest in Microsoft achieving their goals.
So do many others; and clarifying misinformation about it is, in my opinion,
important to the net. My apologies to those who thought these were
marketing issues; I disagree, and this hasn't been my intention (though
the distinction no doubt is different to various people). I believe
everyone should be fully aware of the situation, and encourage
the people involved towards achieving their stated goals. Such public
awareness is one of the best ways of promoting the efforts toward
100% XENIX binary compatibility; which, if obtained, will benefit both
UNIX and XENIX users alike.
As for the original title, on whether Microsoft is dropping XENIX or
adopting UNIX, apparently no consensus can be achieved. My views certainly
are unchanged; perhaps the best which can be resolved is to agree on
disagreeing.
Finally, for those who are interested in pursuing this discussion further,
the BIX and BBS conferences are open to you and are at your service.
Get in touch with me at the addresses listed below; we should be able to
network all interested parties. Your comments and views would be most welcome.
-dwight-
Dwight H. Leu ihnp4!amdcad!uport!dwight
V.P. Engineering well!wolf
Microport microsoft!sco!ucscc!uport!dwight
408-438-8649 bix: dleu
Microport BBS: 408-438-6567 408-438-6687 (login: bbs)
These statements expressed are of course my own viewpoint.
"INSERT YOUR PITHY QUOTE HERE!"
And Happy Holidays!asp@puck.UUCP (Andy Puchrik) (12/25/87)
In article <4826@well.UUCP>, wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes: > > I'm glad to finally see some activity in comp.unix.xenix! And to > think I was worried that creating comp.unix.microport would make things > dull around here! > (deleted...) > I've entitled this the "second to last" posting as I don't intend to > continue discussing it further here. My last posting will be to extend my > congratulations when a real guarantee on XENIX binary compatibility > has been offered. Until then, I have nothing further to add. However I would > (deleted...) Your points about standard Unix and binary compatibility sound good. How about source code compatibility? I'm on a 286 and haven't seen any changes to the c compiler. Does Microport get updates from AT&T or has there only been one System V/AT release? Your technical support has suggested Meta Ware and the Green Hills compilers. Meta Ware wants $695 for the 286 compiler. I know you sell it for $595. I bought all three Microport pieces for around $450 so the compiler prices seem a bit steep! Does Microport use their standard 286 compiler to build the product or do you use something else? > And Happy Holidays! You, too! -- Internet: asp@puck.UUCP Andy Puchrik uucp: decvax!necntc!necis!puck!asp Moonlight Systems ARPA: puchrik@tops20.dec.com Maynard, MA 01754
manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) (12/26/87)
In article <4826@well.UUCP> wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes: >However I would >like to redirect the discussions dealing with Microport to where they would be >most welcome, and serve some real use; namely Microport's BBS. This is now >open to everyone, not just Microport customers. I've called the Microport BBS about a dozen times since it opened. It doesn't appear to be set up for public discussion in any of its topical areas. While I can see that there are messages being left they don't appear to be readable by the Great Unwashed... or at least I've only seen one (1) public message on the message base. Without an open, public discussion area where Microport users can talk with other Microport users the BBS message base is little more than a vehicle to send private mail to John Sully. This, plus the fact that comp.unix.microport is moderated, which I find an unnecessary inconvenience and a handicap for worthwhile user<->user discussion, leaves the nasty impression that Microport might be a little gun-shy about the prospect of Microport Users Unchained. I'm not saying that this >is< the case but both would profit better from less editorial bureaucracy. >Instead, many people have chosen to respond with various flames. >These have done more than just warm up everyone's computers >during the holidays; they have also distracted the discussion. No flame... but I'm STILL waiting for my 2.3 update, Dwight. You were kind enough to leave me UUCP mail saying that you would personally see to it that I would receive this "by next Friday"... December 11th... two weeks ago. My saga with this update began in early October with a promise from Sales that I would see same in two weeks, through UNIX EXPO, through subsequent calls and UUCP with Microport... each time hearing the familiar bird call, "two-weeks". Several of the "flames" directed at Microport here in comp.unix.xenix were in response to Microport's mishandling of customers expecting paid-for updates. I think Microport could do more towards smoothing the waters by admitting to the screw-up and giving customers a realistic delivery date on 2.3 than by dismissing such complaints as "flames". >Let me respond briefly by saying that many were addressed a couple months >ago by Microport's President, and in this newsgroup. Chuck Hickey's well-composed public statement to Usenet was good reading but it was really more a report on the health of Microport's Sales force, not a response to the technical gripes about V/AT that are the meat and potatoes of these discussions. I'm pleased that Microport's business footing is more sound today than it was a year ago. But it addressed very little of what's been ongoing discussion in these newsgroups with regard to Microport, the product. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------- + Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. NYC + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + uunet!iuvax!bsu-cs!zoo-hq!magpie!manes 300/1200/2400
bak@csd_v.UUCP (Bruce) (12/28/87)
In article <2357@dasys1.UUCP>, manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) writes: > In article <4826@well.UUCP> wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes: > ...This, plus the fact that comp.unix.microport is > moderated, which I find an unnecessary inconvenience and a handicap for > worthwhile user<->user discussion,... Hear, hear!! This is another vote for having an unmoderated conference on microport. The discussion on BIX is unmoderated and so far has certainly been far more usefule than comp.unix.microport. ======================================================================== Bruce Kern | uunet!swlabs!csd_v!bak Computer Systems Design | 1-203-270-0399 29 High Rock Rd., Sandy Hook, Ct. 06482 | This space for rent. ========================================================================
plocher@puff.cs.wisc.edu (John Plocher) (12/29/87)
In article <2357@dasys1.UUCP> manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) writes: >discussion area where Microport users can talk with other Microport users >the BBS message base is little more than a vehicle to send private >mail to John Sully. This, plus the fact that comp.unix.microport is >moderated, which I find an unnecessary inconvenience and a handicap for >worthwhile user<->user discussion, leaves the nasty impression that >Microport might be a little gun-shy about the prospect of Microport Users >Unchained. As the moderator of Comp.unix.microport I need to say ONE thing: I haven't seen any submissions from you! So, How do you defend the statement "an unnecessary inconvenience and a handicap for worthwhile user<->user discussion"? You haven't even TRIED IT! Come on, give it a chance; make use of it. If you aren't getting the group at your site, ask your sysadmin why not. Above all, see how it works before you shoot it down in flames. Flames can be mailed to plocher@uwspan.uucp (uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!plocher) I will read them all (and try to respond to as many as I can) -John
manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) (12/30/87)
In article <1386@puff.cs.wisc.edu> plocher@uwspan.uucp (John Plocher) writes: >As the moderator of Comp.unix.microport I need to say ONE thing: > > I haven't seen any submissions from you! > >So, How do you defend the statement "an unnecessary inconvenience and a >handicap for worthwhile user<->user discussion"? You haven't even TRIED IT! Easy, pardner. I've actually attempted two postings to comp.unix.microport. The first was the night the newsgroup first appeared here on Cat. Still being relatively new to Usenet and having no experience with "moderated newsgroups" I simply hit 'F' to add a followup to your introduction then spent the next 20 minutes typing in my own, along with various tips/experiences. Attempting to save it gave me a rude message about not being able to post to comp.unix.microport and my edit went into the Phantom Zone. The second posting -- a modified CR-sensitive 'getty' for baud-sensing -- I sent as instructed. It was promptly returned as undeliverable two days later so I UUCP'd it to Henry Seltzre at Uport instead. Both may be written off as cockpit error/Usenet unfamiliarity but I don't think there's any convincing argument that participating in a moderated newsgroup is as convenient and provocative for users as a public newsgroup. The fact that there's more Microport discussion in comp.unix.xenix than in Microport's own dedicated area tends to bear that out. And I'm sure it's not because Xenix folks are thrilled to keep it here. I'm not certain why some Usenet discussions are moderated and others aren't. The ways of Usenet administration are a black art to me. If however it was an editorial decision to do so, why? Certainly, with the number of Microport users evident on the net it seems bizarre that there are so few postings to comp.unix.microport unless (a) there's problems reaching your system from some sites or (b) other Microport users are equally underwhelmed with a moderated venue. I'm sure you're doing a terrific job and aren't taking any vacations in St. Moritz from the perks of moderating the newsgroup. The criticism was not intended as a criticism of you but of what I, and many others, perceive as a bunker mentality at Microport with regard to honest, informative communication with its customers. And, yes, I'm still waiting for my 2.3 update I paid for last October. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------- + Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. NYC + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + uunet!iuvax!bsu-cs!zoo-hq!magpie!manes 300/1200/2400
clif@chinet.UUCP (Clif Flynt) (01/01/88)
In article <1386@puff.cs.wisc.edu> plocher@uwspan.uucp (John Plocher) writes: >As the moderator of Comp.unix.microport I need to say ONE thing: > > I haven't seen any submissions from you! > I've tried a couple times to send in a submission. First try bounced as undeliverable, and the second seems to have gone into the ozone. (Or hasn't gone throught the net and back here in some 10 days.) A question, is comp.unix.microport dedicated to 286, or are us brave souls treading into the unknown of 386-land also welcome? My apologies for putting this in xenix, but this is where the discussion seems to be going on, and the route from here to uwspan seems a bit shaky. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My Opinions are my own. I can't imagine why anyone else would want them. Clif Flynt ihnp4!chinet!clif ------------------------------------------------------------------------
paddock@mybest.UUCP (Steve Paddock) (01/01/88)
In article <1386@puff.cs.wisc.edu> plocher@uwspan.uucp (John Plocher) writes:
*
*As the moderator of Comp.unix.microport I need to say ONE thing:
*
* I haven't seen any submissions from you!
*
*So, How do you defend the statement "an unnecessary inconvenience and a
*handicap for worthwhile user<->user discussion"? You haven't even TRIED IT!
*
*Come on, give it a chance; make use of it. If you aren't getting the group
*at your site, ask your sysadmin why not. Above all, see how it works before
*you shoot it down in flames.
*
I think that there is a logical flaw. Xenix doesn't seem to need moderation,
and microport does? Why not net.microport :-)
Happy new year, unmoderate microport et al.
Steve
--
Steve Paddock (ut-emx!mybest!paddock) 512-477-9736
Best Printing Co, Austin, Texas 78767