wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) (12/03/87)
In article <384\@sco>, amys\@sco.COM (Amy Snader) writes: > There's just so much BS out of Microport I can stand, even > though I make no claim to having an impartial opinion... I'm sorry to say that this is hardly a professional statement; and ms snader's subsequent comments are obviously not informed ones. I won't waste net bandwidth responding to the diatribe against Microport; especially since none of my statements were contradicted. But I'd be happy to clarify her nonsense if it's of use to the net. What does need to be clarified are the comments about my ending signature: > >"Will your XENIX application run next year when Microsoft drops XENIX and > > switches to UNIX? Not even Microsoft guarantees it." > Such invective! > Dwight should know better. First "misunderstanding": that Microsoft > is "dropping XENIX and switching to UNIX". Microsoft isn't dropping > anything: they are merging the two products. What the merged > product is called is irrelevant: it was as much born out of XENIX > as anything. As evidence of this, note that AT&T is > paying royalties to Microsoft for the use of the XENIX technology > in the merged product. On the contrary, Microsoft *is* dropping XENIX and switching to UNIX. They are switching from their past porting base and finally, at long last (and after much resistance), starting out with real certified UNIX. There's a big difference between UNIX and XENIX. UNIX V.3 has much more support for advanced technology than V.2; and XENIX doesn't even come from the certified V.2 port. Besides, if there wasn't such a big difference it wouldn't be taking Microsoft so long, and so much effort. The merged product will only contain parts of XENIX; notably support for XENIX binary compatibility. The argument about the merged product being born out of XENIX is quite wrong; it will be born solely out of the certified release, and contain only selected parts of XENIX technology. Microsoft is certainly merging technologies. But they are dropping a lot of what they currently have. > Second "misunderstanding": the implication > that XENIX applications won't run after the merge. > I haven't seen a formal statement out of MS, which > is what you probably mean by "guarantee." > I haven't seen any statement out of MS claiming > compatibility with any other sort of current binary. > This is meaningless invective. > > What is true is that being able to run older applications has > always been a key attribute of XENIX. XENIX 386 can not only > run XENIX 286 and XENIX 86 binaries, it can generate them. > The philosophy of not breaking applications has been pervasive > in XENIX from the very beginning, when we were careful not > to break Altos applications. Obviously, a product that > is the next generation of XENIX will put a high value on preserving > the compatibility that has always been XENIX. > > Since Microsoft is doing the merge, I'd expect that if they > were forced to break either XENIX binaries or Coff binaries, they'd > do the latter, both because there's more XENIX binaries out > there and as a matter of remaining true to your own. > > I speak solely for myself, not for SCO. > Followups should probably go either to comp.unix.xenix or the Microport > group, if it ever gets established. > > --amy > {ihnp4,microsof,amdcad}!sco!abs Sorry amy. You just aren't familiar with real UNIX technology, or the effort at commercializing UNIX, which ATT is dumping millions of dollars into. If you were you'd know about ATT's certification program. It's a rigorous testing procedure, exercising the UNIX port inside and out. And it's designed to insure that a port meets the demanding standards which ATT has been working on since 1983. The merged UNIX port will either conform or it won't be accepted. If Microsoft breaks UNIX, they will have to go back and fix it. There are no if's, and's or but's. Unfortunately Microsoft is woefully lacking in a similar assurance program; instead, all one has are promises from marketing. If Microsoft had been serious about maintaining upward compatibility, they would've set up a similiar certification program for XENIX. But they haven't; and there's no formal way of testing out whether 100% of XENIX binary compatibility has been achieved. The only way a XENIX customer will know if his application will run is by trying out the merged product. If it doesn't, he's out of luck. He'll have to buy a whole new package or be stuck forever with an operating system that is no longer supported. What a wasted investment! UNIX customers however can rest assured that any application which uses the certified UNIX technology will run under the merged product, without changes. This is the whole point behind the certification program. And it's part of the reason why ATT has put millions of dollars into porting application software over to UNIX. According to Intel, there are more application programs being ported to UNIX on the 386 than any other 386 operating system. ATT is not about to lose its investment here. I would like to thank you though for bringing this issue up. Microport is a small company, and can't go around holding big press conferences that ATT has to correct later on, like its bigger competitors. And please don't misunderstand me on the merged program. I really think it's wonderful that Microsoft is paying ISC to give Microport XENIX binary compatibilty. Especially after they threatened to sue us if we ever did it, forcing us to drop this program after half a year's effort. But since you've raised the subject, I would like to use this opportunity and ask Microsoft to formally guarantee its customers that their investment is a sound one. And I don't mean its usual marketing hype; their marketing department's ability to deliver on their promises speaks for itself. In my opinion, without a certification program for XENIX they have a burden, a responsibility, to offer some sort of real assurance that their customers aren't going to be stuck with obsolete technology next year. The only real assurance that I can see would be a money back guarantee if they fail. Considering that their customers are gambling on Microsoft's ability to deliver what they promise, I don't see why Microsoft would hesitate to do this. Unless of course they don't think they can deliver on XENIX binary compatibility. But I expect the silence to be quite deafening, and very telling. And I suspect that their customers, having made a substantial (if not overpriced) investment, will have to rise up and insist upon it before it happens. So I would strongly encourage any and all XENIX customers to demand a real guarantee from Microsoft and SCO. Without it, they may very well be stuck in a very expensive trap. -dwight- Dwight H. Leu ihnp4!amdcad!uport!dwight V.P. Engineering well!wolf Microport microsoft!sco!ucscc!uport!dwight 408-438-8649 These statements expressed are of course my own viewpoint. "Will your XENIX application run next year when Microsoft drops XENIX and switches to UNIX? Not even Microsoft guarantees it. Will they 88 8
rich@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Richard Pettit) (12/04/87)
In article <4610@well.UUCP> wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes: >on Microsoft's ability to deliver what they promise, I don't see why ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >port will either conform or it won't be accepted. If Microsoft breaks UNIX, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do you hear this net.land ? The VP of engineering for MICROPORT complaining about marketing departments advertising what they cannot deliver, and suggesting scenarios where Microsoft would take a working product (coincidentally enough, from ISC) and break it. You've got a case, Dwight. A big case. Try curbing your own dog before you complain about your neighbors'. -- rich@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov "Generality up the ying yang. That's the way to go."
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (12/05/87)
Ho hum.
Listen, if Microport put more time into debugging their product and improving
their customer support, and less time posting self-serving articles to the net,
they and their customers would be a lot better off.
Amy Snader's comments (which were in response to earlier self-serving
horn-tooting) were right on the mark. Microsoft has a proven track record
of upwards compatibility with their earlier systems as well as a very large
user base. It also has a very good product in their 286 and 386 versions of
XENIX which are robust, rich in features and don't crash. Their main customer
"front end", SCO, provides high quality support. This leads me to reasonably
believe that whetever merged product Microsoft comes out with will be
of similar quality.
Now, what are we faced with from Microport? Lots of bug reports, lots of
freely given advise from other net folks to buy XENIX because of their
flaky experience with Microport UNIX, and content-free news articles from
its prez and vice-prez which consist of little other than marketing jargon
and bizarre comments about Microsoft's ability to deliver a merged product.
Perhaps it's been Microport's experience that this is a Hard Problem, but
anyone with any technical skill knows that it isn't.
Listen, no one is out to "get" Microport. But if it don't work, it don't
matter how "UNIX System V.3-compatible" it is. Improve what you sell,
and you won't need to defend yourself with this silliness. People choose
systems because they WORK, not because they like one company better than
another.
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.harvard.edu
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {ihnp4,harvard,linus,ima,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!dyergreg@gryphon.UUCP (12/05/87)
In article <4610@well.UUCP> wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes: > >I'm sorry to say that this is hardly a professional statement; >and ms snader's subsequent comments are obviously not informed ones. And thus, we are to believe, it is made to be so. > >Sorry amy. You just aren't familiar with real UNIX technology, or >the effort at commercializing UNIX, which ATT is dumping millions of >dollars into. If you were you'd know about ATT's certification program. >It's a rigorous testing procedure, exercising the UNIX port inside >and out. And it's designed to insure that a port meets the demanding >standards which ATT has been working on since 1983. The merged UNIX >port will either conform or it won't be accepted. If Microsoft breaks UNIX, >they will have to go back and fix it. There are no if's, and's or but's. > Apparently, this rigorous certification process doesn't impose any limitation on crashing and burning. If the postings here by disaffected Microport users are any indication of the level of performance required by the rigourous testing procedures, Microsoft could probably get MSDOS certified as meeting the standard. Generally speaking, whining about your comptetitors won't mollify your dissatisfied customers whose dissafection with Microport seems to speak for itself. Instead, why don't you address some of your customers' complaints. As VP of Engineering, one might conclude that many of these complaints were within your purview. -- Greg Laskin "When everybody's talking and nobody's listening, how can we decide?" INTERNET: Greg.Laskin@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4}!crash!gryphon!greg UUCP: {philabs, scgvaxd}!cadovax!gryphon!greg
steven@lakesys.UUCP (Steven Goodman) (12/05/87)
I can't agree more, SCO's support is nothing less than "Premium".
There are absolutly no instances I can recall where SCO's support
hasn't been able to solve my problems (and 99% of them are my
problems NOT the OS's). Everything runs smooth and I must say
that SCO version of Unix keeps a smile on my face. I cannot speak
for the performance of Microport seeing as I was fortunite enough to
deside against it (Phew!). Although I have spoken with individuals
whom have recently switch from Microport to SCO (you know who you are)
and I have received nothing but excellent feedback as to the switch.
A typical example of SCO's support happened quite recently where I needed
to drive my ports at 19,200 and also send some characters not supported
by SCO's uucico (Telebit TrailBlazer stuff), I called SCO and within a
couple of days a new uucico and a new cu was delivered and works fine
(Thanks James).
In my opinion there is simply nothing more important than a stable system
with a GREAT support team behind it.
--
Steven Goodman |
Lake Systems Milwaukee, Wisconsin | "A smart man talks,
1 (414) 744-7033 | a wise man listens"
UUCP: {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!steven |pete@romed.UUCP (Pete Rourke) (12/05/87)
In article <859@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> rich@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Richard Pettit) writes: >In article <4610@well.UUCP> wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes: > >>on Microsoft's ability to deliver what they promise, I don't see why > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>port will either conform or it won't be accepted. If Microsoft breaks UNIX, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Do you hear this net.land ? The VP of engineering for MICROPORT >complaining about marketing departments advertising what they cannot >Try curbing your own dog before you complain about your neighbors'. > Hear Hear!! Microport VP (nothing better to do?) Microsoft Software Engineer have both responed. Let's open a news group called vendor.rock.throwers that I can unsubscribe to, and let's get on to the technical discussions. I came here to learn, not listen to petty vendor arguments. Vendors are welcome to offer suggestions to work-arounds and such, but name calling and poor taste >> /dev/null pete disclaimers << /dev/null
steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) (12/13/87)
In article <4610@well.UUCP>, wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes: > In article <384\@sco>, amys\@sco.COM (Amy Snader) writes: > > There's just so much BS out of Microport I can stand, even > > though I make no claim to having an impartial opinion... > I'm sorry to say that this is hardly a professional statement; > and ms snader's subsequent comments are obviously not informed ones. > I won't waste net bandwidth responding to the diatribe against Microport; > especially since none of my statements were contradicted. But I'd be happy > to clarify her nonsense if it's of use to the net. You then proceed to waste more net bandwidth with a pseudo-technical diatribe against Microsoft. Are we to take your article as a model of professional discourse? > Sorry amy. You just aren't familiar with real UNIX technology, or > the effort at commercializing UNIX, which ATT is dumping millions of > dollars into. If you were you'd know about ATT's certification program. Of what possible consequence is the money AT+T wastes forcing an inferior version of unix on the world? This looks like a textbook case of confusing cost and value. > It's a rigorous testing procedure, exercising the UNIX port inside > and out. And it's designed to insure that a port meets the demanding > standards which ATT has been working on since 1983. The merged UNIX I suppose that these demanding standards are mute on the question of device driver correctness? How about fsck working? The system clock keeping time? Cron firing a predictable number of copies of the same job? "File system hardening" being a meaningful phrase? Or trivial little things like uucico not core dumping when you try to run it in debugging mode. Or vi doing successive shifts without dropping to ex mode. Or the system not forgetting about the free inodes on a filesystem, requiring a reboot. Or having the text being written to one virtual terminal not show up on a different one? What do AT+T's demanding standards say about non-priveledged processes being able to halt the system? Like for instance by attempting to write to a protected floppy? Or an off-line printer? Or using a serial port? > Unfortunately Microsoft is woefully lacking in a similar assurance > program; instead, all one has are promises from marketing. If Microsoft had > been serious about maintaining upward compatibility, they would've set up a > similiar certification program for XENIX. But they haven't; and there's no > formal way of testing out whether 100% of XENIX binary compatibility has been And how do you propose to make such assurances? Ever hear of AT+T SystemV? The one that was supposed to be the standard? The one before release 2? The one that still had termcap? Feh! Binary compatibility is a great deal less important than correct implementation of documented features. I won't debate exactly how important it is - obviously it is important to at least one person. Nevertheless, what assurance can Microport give me that SystemV release 4 or release 3 version 12 or SystemVI or whatever won't break some binary image somewhere? What are you going to do, give me my money back if I can write a program that works on one and not on the other? > achieved. The only way a XENIX customer will know if his application will > run is by trying out the merged product. If it doesn't, he's out of luck. > He'll have to buy a whole new package or be stuck forever with an > operating system that is no longer supported. What a wasted investment! Or get an update from the application vendor. How hard can that be? I bought Microport SystemV almost exactly 12 months ago. Guess what? It still has bugs. "No longer" supported? It never was! We aren't talking niggly little bugs in /usr/games either. > UNIX customers however can rest assured that any application which > uses the certified UNIX technology will run under the merged product, > without changes. This is the whole point behind the certification program. > And it's part of the reason why ATT has put millions of dollars into porting > application software over to UNIX. According to Intel, there are more > application programs being ported to UNIX on the 386 than any other 386 > operating system. ATT is not about to lose its investment here. Is this anything but marketing noise? How much did this incredibly foresighted company not loose playing with Olivetti? Convergent? Handle? The problem in the unix software industry isn't incompatible features, it's incompatible bugs. > But since you've raised the subject, I would like to use this opportunity and > ask Microsoft to formally guarantee its customers that their investment > is a sound one. And I don't mean its usual marketing hype; their marketing > department's ability to deliver on their promises speaks for itself. But since you've raised the subject, I would like to use this opportunity ans ask Microport to formally guarantee its customers that their investment is a sound one. And I don't mean its usual marketing hype, nor do I mean having the technical support staff lie through their teeth and tell me they've never heard of a problem I've been calling in about regularly for months, and about which I know other people have been calling. Fix this shit or take out a loan and give everyone their money back. > In my opinion, without a certification program for XENIX they have a > burden, a responsibility, to offer some sort of real assurance that > their customers aren't going to be stuck with obsolete technology next > year. The only real assurance that I can see would be a money back > guarantee if they fail. Considering that their customers are gambling > on Microsoft's ability to deliver what they promise, I don't see why > Microsoft would hesitate to do this. Unless of course they don't > think they can deliver on XENIX binary compatibility. > But I expect the silence to be quite deafening, and very telling. And I > Dwight H. Leu ihnp4!amdcad!uport!dwight > V.P. Engineering well!wolf > Microport microsoft!sco!ucscc!uport!dwight > These statements expressed are of course my own viewpoint. Couldn't have said it better myself. How can you show your face in public? And take pot shots at Microsoft? Give me a break. You should be doing engineering, not marketing. We can all see there is enough to be done. > Will they ever?" -- Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be (713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947
usenet@mpx1.UUCP (The Usenet News Administrator) (12/15/87)
Just curious.... Look at the mail path to uport in Dwight's signature.... Goes through some interesting places eh?.... >(from recent flames on microport/xenix) > Dwight H. Leu ihnp4!amdcad!uport!dwight > V.P. Engineering well!wolf > Microport microsoft!sco!ucscc!uport!dwight > > These statements expressed are of course my own viewpoint. -- Erik Murrey /| // /^^^^/ | / MPX Data Systems, Inc. / | / / /____/ |/ / / / / /| Data Systems, Inc. {ihnp4,bpa,vu-vlsi,cbmvax}!mpx1!erik / / / / |====================