gil@limbic.UUCP (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (06/27/88)
In article <4600@killer.UUCP> loci@killer.UUCP (loci!clb) writes: |> Here we go again. Periodically, for some reason, everyone seems |> to flame anything and everything about their unixpc and I feel |> compelled to say ... |> |> MY UNIXPC WORKS FINE AND I LIKE IT. Excuse me... |> Don't get me wrong, I know |> that there are some problems and I some combinations that don't ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |> work so well, but my system is quite stable and reliable. It |> has been on line for as much as six months at a time, without |> panics or anything. This is good, but if you are saying that there are some problems, your UNIX pc is NOT running fine. Mine runs "fine" but there are some SERIOUS bugs in the OS, particularly in the phone and OBM/Serial driver routines which should be fixed. I think that most of us can safely say that we like our UNIX pc's or we wouldn't be participating and reading this newsgroup -- we would simply sell our 3B1s and buy a -386 (gak!?). |> On the other hand, I know a couple of things that are sure kills |> on the machine, like exiting from DOS-73 in skinny font or doing |> a rastop to an odd address, but mostly the unixpc is every bit as |> good as any machine I've ever seen and much better than most. The machine is pretty good as far as I'm concerned. The problem with DOS-73 and rastop are both software problems. |> What am I running? SysV, vers. 3.0, standard uucp, OBM, smail. If you are a heavy uucp site, you will have problems with your "standard" uucp, as well as if you try and use a telebit or the like. For you, this is fine. For others who want this more extended config, what do they do? (the 3B1 allegedly supports this)... |> What am I not running? ua, ph (the PANIC BUTTON program took |> over the ph spot on the upper line). I used to have trouble |> running several users but more ram fixed that. Development |> can coexist with hack and uucp or whatever. If ua, ph, or other "layered" software products that people pay money for doesn't work, don't you think someone(?) should scream about it? Since there seems to be a commitment on AT&T's and Convergent's part to NOT release the source code to the UNIX running on the 3B1 or the utility programs, we are at the mercy of whoever(?) "fixes" these packages if we wish to use them. For ua, ph, wmgr, etc.. we could write our own. Ever try reverse-engineering UNIX from scratch? Not fun... |> SO...please try to keep some balance here. the unixpc isn't |> perfect but it's not that bad either. I think we all feel this way, again, or else we wouldn't be here... |> CLBrunow - KA5SOF |> Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 |> clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp Side note -- as I said in my last posting -- I think that many of the problems in the UNIX pc are SOFTWARE related. I know there are folks at AT&T who read this group... Being someone who works for a company that does software development, I know that certain things can't be fixed because company policy and/or admin.($$) prohibits it. However, there is a very large group of UNIX pc users out here, and I think AT&T should begin to consider a better support policy for those of us with UNIX pcs. If they are NOT going to do this, then how about putting out feelers for some kind of 3rd party OS/utility software maintenance/development? I have a definite interest in this kind of arrangement. +------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | Gil Kloepfer, Jr. | Net-Address: | | ICUS Software Systems | {boulder,talcott}!icus!limbic!gil | | P.O. Box 1 | Voice-net: (516) 968-6860 | | Islip Terrace, New York 11752 | Othernet: gil@limbic.UUCP | +------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
usenet@bsadrc.UUCP (Darrel R. Carver) (06/29/88)
In article <150@limbic.UUCP> gil@limbic.UUCP (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes: [ Deleted ] > >Side note -- as I said in my last posting -- I think that many of the problems >in the UNIX pc are SOFTWARE related. I know there are folks at AT&T who read >this group... Being someone who works for a company that does software >development, I know that certain things can't be fixed because company policy >and/or admin.($$) prohibits it. However, there is a very large group of UNIX pc >users out here, and I think AT&T should begin to consider a better support >maintenance/development? I have a definite interest in this kind of >arrangement. I was wondering, what if we tried going after this point through convergent? Since they built the machine, it would seem that they have to have the software and licences too. Possibly they would be easier to deal with. I am aware that companies find it poor practice to support a product that they no longer produce... however, if I had bought mine at full price (which I thought was a good deal) I would be more than a little pissed off right now. On a side note (according to last weeks Infoworld) Sun is starting to find just how hard it is to work with a big company (such as AT&T). It will be interesting to se how this impacts their current arrangement... -- Darrel R. Carver USENET: uunet!bsadrc!drc ATTMAIL: dcarver BearWare Software Associates "Bring the whole family... but leave the 299 South Lexington the kids at home! R. McDonald" White Plains, NY 10606 -- Little Myth Marker, by Robert Asprin
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (06/29/88)
>Side note -- as I said in my last posting -- I think that many of the problems >in the UNIX pc are SOFTWARE related. I know there are folks at AT&T who read >this group... Being someone who works for a company that does software >development, I know that certain things can't be fixed because company policy >and/or admin.($$) prohibits it. However, there is a very large group of UNIX pc >users out here, and I think AT&T should begin to consider a better support >policy for those of us with UNIX pcs. If they are NOT going to do this, then >how about putting out feelers for some kind of 3rd party OS/utility software >maintenance/development? I have a definite interest in this kind of >arrangement. This suggestion has been made numerous times via "direct" means. Certain parts of ATT itself had difficulty getting the sources they require. There's also an apparent catch-22 running here. The source code that was purchased from Convergent is still being sold by Convergent in its original state, which is nothing like the current state. Convergent still holds their copyrights on that. ATT has made several modifications and additions to the source, since they are licensed to. ATT cannot distribute or sell anything except binaries. Whether they can distribute diffs of their additions is another question. So, apparently the only way to get 3b1 source is to purchase the original base software from Convergent (hello site licensing costs :-) and convince someone at ATT to provide you with their diffs, if: - They legally can. - You can find someone who'll actually go _through_ that kind of gruelling pain. UGH! Also, Convergent has replaced that original version of Unix with another, so the first is somewhat de-emphasised. ATT has orphaned the 3b1, and has de-emphasised it as much as they possibly can. So, you'll get little interest or response (corporately) from either party, although Convergent will be more than happy to sell you their source (whatever that looks like). (Note: This summary has been pieced together by pieces of information provided by ATT and Convergent folx. If there are any particular errors, sorry. I have no way of confirming all the little details :-) Certain ATT technicians and others have expressed definate interest in allowing third party support, but admit themselves they honestly wouldn't even know who to talk to. ATT will fix significant problems, only if you can convince them it's really "broken" and _must_ be fixed. Strange short term support, in my mind. There are items that are "broken", and yet still operate. These will probably never be repaired. In any case, the third parties are willing to repair these, add new features and enhance existing software. These are the things the users are looking for, and ATT won't spend time or money to do. So, the end loser is the user and purchasers. ATT won't invest a large amount in support, and ATT can't distribute the source. Convergent can sell their original base source, but it's not the same system. Argh! -- "I've been trying for some time to Robert J. Granvin develop a life-style that doesn't National Information Systems, Inc. require my presence." rjg@sialis.mn.org -Garry Trudeau ...{{amdahl,hpda}!bungia,rosevax}!sialis!rjg