jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) (07/06/90)
In a number of recent articles in comp.sys.apollo, people have expressed their dissatisfaction with many aspects of HP's customer services, in particular with HP's attitude to security. For example, in <1407@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, root@craven.ee.man.ac.uk (Operator) "Colin" writes: >Frankly, it seems to me that Apollo's attitude towards security sucks, which >is a great shame 'cos I generally love the machines. I couldn't agree more with Colin. With a real networked file system (//), token ring, the DM, ACLs and more, Apollos have a system which could be driving most other Unix workstations out of the market (no offence to HP machines intended :-) But the company's services to customers are bad enough to cancel all this out. Some extracts from other articles appear at the end of this one. They show that there is a lot of frustration among a lot of Apollo system managers. It's not only security: other issues include non-supply of patch tapes, slow or non-existent response to APRs (Apollo Product Reports), difficulties obtaining the latest release (or *any* release) of software products, and notorious series of bugs such as in pseudo-ttys. One of the worst aspects of HP's performance is their failure to take advantage of the network. There are a few stalwarts like Ollie Jones, Peter Craine, John Vasta and Walt Weber who do respond in comp.sys.apollo and their efforts are much appreciated by me for one. But I suspect that corporate HP doesn't even know the net as a community of users exists. SUN do much better here. For example, for at least a year they have been supplying patches by ftp (for details ftp the file sun-fixes/README from uunet.uu.net). This neatly gets round the security problems of sending patches through news or mail. Of course, it means that people *without* SUN software maintenance contracts can get the patches, but apparently SUN has enough of a commitment to all its customers that this doesn't worry them. I'd like to see HP/Apollo start using the net to provide better customer services. Here are some suggestions: * HP to set up a public ftp archive containing an index of APRs, an index of latest versions of software (not the software itself:-), and a complete set of patches, say in compressed wbak form. There's no reason why it couldn't have advertisements for new products too. * Prompt response *by email* to APRs submitted by email for customers with service contracts. * HP to appoint one or more staff as Net Liaison Officers to oversee and act as contacts for the above services, and to monitor news and promptly obtain and post responses from the appropriate HP experts. I propose that we get organized and use the power of the network to encourage HP to improve things. If a good fraction of the users who read these newsgroups campaign simultaneously, maybe HP will take note and act. What can we do? o Keep posting news articles expressing complaints and ideas for improvements (if you're shy of posting send me mail and I'll post an anonymous summary). o Cajole, beg or threaten people from HP to come into this discussion and use news. o Find out more about what other companies do to support their users effectively. For example, can anybody who reads the SUN newsgroups tell us if SUN staff post responses officially, or at least more often than Apollo staff? o Think of other avenues for applying pressure on HP. For example, has anyone had any contact with CERT, the Computer Emergency Response Team, cert@cert.sei.cmu.edu? Maybe CERT can help with security issues. o Get HP and Apollo customers working together. I'm cross-posting this to comp.sys.{apollo,hp} as a start. What do users of HP machines feel about the company's services? o Develop a "manifesto" of what we'd like to see from HP, perhaps using my suggestions above as a starting point. o When the manifesto is ready, talk to or email our sales reps and other contacts within HP asking them to use their influence to implement it. (Does anybody have email addresses for people in HP responsible for customer relations policy?) o If all else fails, consider setting up our own ftp archives of useful information, e.g. old articles from this news group, lists of latest patches and software versions (taking care of HP's copyrights of course :-). I would be willing to maintain an Australian Apollo site if it comes to this. There have been flurries of complaints about HP/Apollo's performance on Usenet before, but so far they've always died away leaving the bad old status quo in place. Let's not let that happen this time. -- Extracts from recent news articles in comp.sys.apollo (ellipses in brackets [...] are mine): In <1990Jun29.150426.26943@cns.umist.ac.uk>, ran@cns.umist.ac.uk (Bob Nutter) writes: > [...] Trying to get >any sense out of Hp/Apollo these days, never mind details on an APR >that someone filed in possibly a different continent is _not_exactly_easy_ >Christ, they're not even sure about our contracts with them! I know it >doesn't resolve the issue, but how many people out there have had a >patch tape *offered* them by apollo? Do Apollo tell you about >bugs/problems? Why do more problems get sorted out here than through >manual-quoting support centres? (These are all questions someone at >HP/Apollo should answer...) In <542@ebe.eb.ele.tue.nl>, wjw@eba.eb.ele.tue.nl (Willem Jan Withagen) writes: >The problem [...] is that I and many more of the "approved" users, >are have trouble getting to the hotline. And it somnetimes takes a while for >the correct info to propagate to place outside the US of A. In <2032@cernvax.UUCP>, achille@cernvax.UUCP (achille petrilli) writes: > [...] the official channels or the >'security by ignorance' are not always the right way of handling this sort of >problems. >In some cases, you MUST go out to the net and take the risk. In <1646@tuvie>, mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) writes: >I guess the only way something will be done is by postin security problems to >the net. [...] >Also, if HP/Apollo think they can handle Apollo security problem by saying >Apollos were never intended to be secure, then we should try to force them >to enhance security by posting *ALL* problems to the net ('security by >exposure' instead of 'security by ignorance'). In <1990Jul5.142403.3942@quintro.uucp>, bep@quintro.uucp (Bryan Province) writes: > [...] Too bad HP/Apollo doesn't subscribe to the same policies that >other companies have used for years (stab, gouge, flame). -- Jim Richardson Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au ACSNET: jimr@maths.su.oz FAX: +61 2 692 4534
wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl (Willem Jan Withagen) (07/06/90)
In article <1990Jul6.015817.23710@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) writes: >In a number of recent articles in comp.sys.apollo, people have expressed their >dissatisfaction with many aspects of HP's customer services, in particular >with HP's attitude to security. Well I'm going to leave the rest of the article out. And make some remarks on the service I've been getting from Apollo lately. It has always been tedious to get anything out of Apollo before the merge with HP. No only two weeks ago, after the posting of patches by Brian Quintro and some asking around with our Apollo-office in Holland, they (Apollo) are going to mail patches to all larger sites. (Our group is not a large site, the Univeristy is, so I'll be distributing it) The point is: I was able to tell them what was there, and after some urging they were willing to do the proper thing. This thread of news is already going on for a while, and I've been Emailing with : Mike Zeleznik (zeleznik@cs.utah.edu) and the following is the lasted in our private thread: (He called some people at HP) . Turns out that HP used to, and still probably does, publish booklets . every 3 or 4 months with known problems. They were categorized reasonably . well (though I didn't see a great index, there was at least a reasonable . table of contents) and each ended with indication of the status (usually . "fixed in next release", but others too). . The point is that they DID publish known bugs, and now that Apollo is part . of them, they should do the same; ESPECIALLY since Apollo already has the . mothly patch tape procedure already in progress. . . Michael Zeleznik Computer Science Dept. . University of Utah . zeleznik@cs.utah.edu Salt Lake City, UT 84112 . (801) 581-5617 From my experience and the above text my conclusion was that Apollo is trying to improve it's performance in this area. And perhaps we should give them to more time to get things proper organised. Perhaps even an offical statement from Apollo would be wise, it would certainly be welcome. My problem is: I'm willing to do things like setting up FTP and creating a summary with patches. BUT that should be Apollo's work. It's takes a lot of time, and perhaps even aggravates people at HP. And how about those poor sods, not connected to the Internet. Our Univ. got hooked up only a few months ago. And then not everyone us Usenet going on his site. The last thing I would like to stress in this TOO LONG article is: - I'm still in favour of exposing every BUG and/or FEATURE in the system, (perhaps a little less loud on security breaks) and let as much people know as is possible. So this is my 2 penny's in this discussion, Willem Jan Withagen NOTE: I'll put the patchtape info file in our anonymous ftp, for those who missed the posting of it. FTP: eba.eb.ele.tue.nl (131.155.2.25) in pub/apollo/patchinfo.Z Eindhoven University of Technology DomainName: wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl Digital Systems Group, Room EH 10.10 BITNET: ELEBWJ@HEITUE5.BITNET P.O. 513 Tel: +31-40-473401 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands
mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) (07/06/90)
In article <1990Jul6.015817.23710@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>, jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) writes: > I'd like to see HP/Apollo start using the net to provide better customer > services. Here are some suggestions: > > * HP to set up a public ftp archive containing an index of APRs, an > index of latest versions of software (not the software itself:-), > and a complete set of patches, say in compressed wbak form. There's > no reason why it couldn't have advertisements for new products too. > Now with Domain this could be a real headache. Since chroot does not work (I guess it will *NEVER* be fixed), anonymous ftp is not so simple. Still, I remember having read an article about someone having fixed the ftp-server to be safe for anonymous ftp. Maybe HP/Apollo should start by fixing ftp themselves and distribute such a version. Would facilitate setting up anonymous ftp for Apollos, if it's available without too much of a problem. Product announcements would be nice, if they contain INFORMATION instead of hot air. I hate the colorful announcements containing information that could be summed up in two or three sentences, and I do not want to pay for the same thing in the news. > * Prompt response *by email* to APRs submitted by email for customers > with service contracts. > The idea is nice. But I would also like to be told about bug fixes and bugs that are not fixed. - Now this HP/Apollo will probably resist, because they would increase the pressure on themselves when doing such a thing, but I DO NOT WANT TO SPEND DAYS (OR WEEKS) HUNTING DOWN KNOWN BUGS!!! > * HP to appoint one or more staff as Net Liaison Officers to oversee > and act as contacts for the above services, and to monitor news and > promptly obtain and post responses from the appropriate HP experts. > I do not know how HP think about the news, but I guess some companies might not like the idea of the net. As long as we are alone, each of us facing our local sales rep. we're not nearly as powerful as the user community having access to the news is!!! > I propose that we get organized and use the power of the network to encourage > HP to improve things. If a good fraction of the users who read these > newsgroups campaign simultaneously, maybe HP will take note and act. Some managers may already panic! Let's make the rest of them fear the thought of continuing to sell lousy programs! The idea of Domain OS is great, I wish the implementation were half as good! > -- > Jim Richardson > Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia > Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au ACSNET: jimr@maths.su.oz FAX: +61 2 692 4534 I guess Sun is a good example how a company can care for its customers, if it really wants to. After all, regardless of whether the customer has a service contract or not, if the OS is lousy and has bugs, that will ruin the company's credibility of supplying good products. A bug is a bug is a bug, regardless of whether you have a service contract or not! (BTW, I always have wondered why I need a service contract to get bug fixes. Shouldn't this be part of product liability? After all, if I buy a car and find out the brakes do not work properly, they are responsible! And they will have to fix it, regardless of service contracts and the like). bye, mike ____ ____ / / / / / Michael K. Gschwind mike@vlsivie.at / / / / / Technical University, Vienna mike@vlsivie.uucp ---/ Voice: (++43).1.58801 8144 e182202@awituw01.bitnet / Fax: (++43).1.569697 ___/
dan@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Daniel Freedman) (07/06/90)
In article <1990Jul6.015817.23710@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) writes: >In a number of recent articles in comp.sys.apollo, people have expressed their >dissatisfaction with many aspects of HP's customer services, in particular >with HP's attitude to security. > >For example, in <1407@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, root@craven.ee.man.ac.uk (Operator) >"Colin" writes: > >>Frankly, it seems to me that Apollo's attitude towards security sucks, which >>is a great shame 'cos I generally love the machines. > >I couldn't agree more with Colin. With a real networked file system (//), >token ring, the DM, ACLs and more, Apollos have a system which could be >driving most other Unix workstations out of the market (no offence to HP >machines intended :-) But the company's services to customers are bad enough >to cancel all this out. > [...much deleted...] >What can we do? Unfortunately this has been going on for years, and every few months, someone gets really frustrated, and posts a message such as yours. Trust me, Apollo doesn't seem to care. As you said, a few guys obviously do care, but they have not been able to change things all that much. Lets ask a question: Why would anyone in the world buy an Apollo workstation today? 1) Price? Well, since you can buy a faster sparcstation SLC for only a little more than Apollos cheapest machine (the 2500), price does not cut it. 2) Performance? The 10000 is pretty fast, but also pretty expensive. Also, we have heard that the 10000 is more or less obsolete, to be replaced with a combined HP/Apollo risc machine. MIPS has faster machines, and a Sparc 490 is not to be sneezed at for similar or less dollars. 3) Technical Superiority? It is true that Apollos have a technically better O/S. The distributed object oriented file system is - if slow - at least innovative and functional. However, (maybe people will want to comment on this) I feel that although some features are missing or brain-damaged on Suns, you can get anything to work on a Sun that you can get to work on an Apollo. In other words, Apollo doesn't offer anything that you fundamentally can't get on a Sun. Since Suns are more open than Apollos, and since there is *much* more Sun expertise out there than Apollo expertise, the "hassle differential" between making something work on a Sun and making it work on an Apollo is greatly reduced. Technical superiority of the o/s, while an important factor in the past, is now largely irrelevant. 4) Support? I think Colin's and Jim's messages tell you all that you want to know about this one. 5) Direction? If it looked like Apollo was going to come out with some really neat stuff, then this might be a reason for not migrating away from Apollos -- for perhaps at least deferring the decision as to what to buy. However, from what I've seen, Apollo is going to continue to do in 1990 and 1991 what it did in 1987-1990 (and possibly before that too). That is, it announces hardware for 6 months from now which has slightly better performance than today's machines from other vendors. Of course, 6 months from now, the competition will be selling machines which are twice as fast, for a similar price. 6) No choice? Well, if you have made a large investment in software which uses proprietary stuff from Apollo such as d3m (the database), then you are probably stuck with it. This is probably the only good reason to buy an Apollo. However, at some point you are going to want to bite the bullet and move to something which doesnt tie you down, such as oracle. The fact that oracle may be inferior is irrelevent. You can do everything that you can do with d3m with oracle (although it may be distasteful), and once you've done it, you can move it around at will. In short, its not that Apollo has changed, its that it hasn't changed while those around it catch up. The point has been reached where other vendors machines allow you to do just as much, quicker, cheaper, and in some cases due to inreased availability of tools and expertise, better. I think it is really sad that Apollo has frittered away all of its (substantial) advantages by simply *letting* the competition overtake it. If it sounds like I'm frustrated, its because I am. I have been a faithful fan of Apollos for 4 years, having administered a netwrok of 15 Apollos in a predominantly SUN department. It used to be that I could get away with saying "these machines are better and neater than the Suns", and it would be true. Today however, the answer from our Sun users is "so what, I can do what I need to on a Sun, and it runs n times as fast". Dan Freedman U. of Calgary Computer Science Dept., 403 220-7299 2500 University Dr. N.W., dan@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2N 1N4
glass@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Adam Glass) (07/07/90)
In article <1663@tuvie> mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) writes: > Now with Domain this could be a real headache. Since chroot does >not work (I guess it will *NEVER* be fixed), anonymous ftp is not so >simple. Still, I remember having read an article about someone having >fixed the ftp-server to be safe for anonymous ftp. Maybe HP/Apollo >should start by fixing ftp themselves and distribute such a version. >Would facilitate setting up anonymous ftp for Apollos, if it's >available without too much of a problem. > A version of the ftpd that doesn't require chroot(2) can be found on: ocf.berkeley.edu 128.32.184.254 later, Adam Glass -- Adam Glass |Internet: glass@soda.Berkeley.EDU Various duties at UCB ranging from |UUCP: !ucbvax!soda!glass political to system administration. |"Ignore Reality"
paulg@hparc0.HP.COM (Paul Gillingwater) (07/09/90)
/ hparc0:comp.sys.apollo / jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) / 11:58 am Jul 6, 1990 / > One of the worst aspects of HP's performance is their failure to take > advantage of the network. > * HP to set up a public ftp archive containing an index of APRs, > an index of latest versions of software (not the software itself:-), > and a complete set of patches, say in compressed wbak form. There's > no reason why it couldn't have advertisements for new products too. Excellent idea... but let's remember that there are Internet type users in other countries too, so please plan to allow for Intercon and Europe. > * HP to appoint one or more staff as Net Liaison Officers to oversee > and act as contacts for the above services, and to monitor news and > promptly obtain and post responses from the appropriate HP experts. Again... remember that there are other countries involved in this. Many HP customers in Europe don't speak English, but post in their local language on their local nets. Of course this is not too much of a problem in Australia/New Zealand! > > I propose that we get organized and use the power of the network to encourage > HP to improve things. If a good fraction of the users who read these > newsgroups campaign simultaneously, maybe HP will take note and act. Great idea!
jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) (07/09/90)
In <544@eba.eb.ele.tue.nl>, wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl (Willem Jan Withagen) writes: > [...] only two weeks ago, after the posting of patches by Brian Quintro >and some asking around with our Apollo-office in Holland, they (Apollo) are >going to mail patches to all larger sites. Good for Apollo Holland! So pressure *can* get services improved. But this is still not ideal: mailing tapes through the post to some sites will be more work for HP in the long run than making patches available on one FTP host so all Internet sites can get them themselves. >NOTE: I'll put the patchtape info file in our anonymous ftp, for those who > missed the posting of it. > FTP: eba.eb.ele.tue.nl (131.155.2.25) in pub/apollo/patchinfo.Z Thanks for doing this, Willem. At least I now know what problems the 9006 patch tape might fix ... if we could just get the patches. We only got the 9003 tape here because our contact in the Australian HP Response Centre kindly made an unofficial copy for us himself: I'm grateful for that, but it's hap- hazard from our point of view and inefficient from HP's. In <1990Jul6.155846.7327@calgary.uucp>, dan@cs-sun-fsd.UUCP (Daniel Freedman) writes, in the context of a heart-felt article with which I greatly sympathize: > [...] Since Suns are more open than Apollos, > and since there is *much* more Sun expertise out there than Apollo > expertise, the "hassle differential" between making something work on a > Sun and making it work on an Apollo is greatly reduced. [...] There aren't as many Apollo users as Sun users (maybe this is an advantage: the volume in comp.sys.sun is frightening! :-) But there is still plenty of Apollo expertise on the net. This and other points are well illustrated by the following: In <GLASS.90Jul6223032@avalanche.ocf.Berkeley.EDU>, glass@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Adam Glass) writes: >In article <1663@tuvie> mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) writes: >> Now with Domain this could be a real headache. Since chroot does >>not work (I guess it will *NEVER* be fixed), anonymous ftp is not so >>simple. Still, I remember having read an article about someone having >>fixed the ftp-server to be safe for anonymous ftp. Maybe HP/Apollo >>should start by fixing ftp themselves and distribute such a version. [...] > >A version of the ftpd that doesn't require chroot(2) can be found on: > ocf.berkeley.edu > 128.32.184.254 This version was developed by Sam Shen (sls@ocf.berkeley.edu) in May: there's one expert for a start. Now if HP were listening on the net, they could ask Sam Shen for permission to put his code into the Apollo ftpd distribution, and then we'd have a version which could support anonymous ftp *and* the Apollo filetype extension (see "filetype" in ftp(1)). Better still, why can't HP be "open", in Daniel Freed- man's word, and publicize the *source* of their modifications to ftpd and other widely available code? There's a precedent in /domain_examples/tcp/gated. Then people on the net could keep ftpd up to date and HP could re-import the results. Another case crying out for this is sendmail, where the latest official Apollo version is 5.52 (5/6/86): FOUR years out of date! A more open and co-operative approach by HP would benefit both customers and the company itself. Thanks to the people who've posted and sent mail supporting the "netpower" idea, especially the HP employee who's relaying some of our discussions into the in- ternal HP notes groups. I'm trying to write a first draft of a document we can put to HP. Everybody -- please keep posting your comments and complaints about HP services. -- Jim Richardson Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au ACSNET: jimr@maths.su.oz FAX: +61 2 692 4534 -- There have been flurries of complaints about HP/Apollo's performance on Usenet before, but so far they've always died away leaving the bad old status quo in place. Let's not let that happen this time.
root@VLSI-MENTOR.JPL.NASA.GOV (The vlsi-mentor Super User) (07/09/90)
>I propose that we get organized and use the power of the network to encourage >HP to improve things. If a good fraction of the users who read these >newsgroups campaign simultaneously, maybe HP will take note and act. I couldn't agree more. Please count me in... >There have been flurries of complaints about HP/Apollo's performance on Usenet >before, but so far they've always died away leaving the bad old status quo in >place. Let's not let that happen this time. Agreed. Perhaps we could start by having HPOLLO officially support anonymous FTP so that some user-supported archives would be possible. :)
tomg@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Thomas J. Gilg) (07/11/90)
> Agreed. Perhaps we could start by having HPOLLO officially support anonymous > FTP so that some user-supported archives would be possible. :) The chroot problem under DomainOS should NOT be an excuse for HP/Apollo. Anonymous ftp is anonymous ftp (ie, machine independent). We have other machines. To my knowledge, we have several HP-UX open internet gateways providing anon ftp now. Thomas Gilg tomg@cv.hp.com
mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) (07/11/90)
In article <1480001@hparc0.HP.COM>, paulg@hparc0.HP.COM (Paul Gillingwater) writes: > > * HP to set up a public ftp archive containing an index of APRs, > > an index of latest versions of software (not the software itself:-), > > and a complete set of patches, say in compressed wbak form. There's > > no reason why it couldn't have advertisements for new products too. > > Excellent idea... but let's remember that there are Internet type users > in other countries too, so please plan to allow for Intercon and Europe. > THAT IS IMPORTANT! I'd also like to read about new patches in the news. > > Again... remember that there are other countries involved in this. Many > HP customers in Europe don't speak English, but post in their local > language on their local nets. Of course this is not too much of a > problem in Australia/New Zealand! Nice of you to care for those poor Europeans. But I just wonder how we are reading the manual pages, documentation, the news and all the other stuff :-). I do not know how this in other countries, but I have never ever read articles written in German in Austria. bye, mike ____ ____ / / / / / Michael K. Gschwind mike@vlsivie.at / / / / / Technical University, Vienna mike@vlsivie.uucp ---/ Voice: (++43).1.58801 8144 e182202@awituw01.bitnet / Fax: (++43).1.569697 ___/
mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) (07/11/90)
In article <101020007@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com>, tomg@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Thomas J. Gilg) writes: > > > Agreed. Perhaps we could start by having HPOLLO officially support anonymous > > FTP so that some user-supported archives would be possible. :) > > The chroot problem under DomainOS should NOT be an excuse for HP/Apollo. > Anonymous ftp is anonymous ftp (ie, machine independent). We have other > machines. To my knowledge, we have several HP-UX open internet gateways > providing anon ftp now. This applies to the HP/Apollo organization. The problem is that there are many installations with Apollos only who would be ready to support an anonymous ftp archive - if it were possible without too many difficulties. Granted, there now is an ftpd version for anonymous access on Apollos, but I know of lots of sites in Europe or Australia, who do not have access to the anonymous ftp sites in the US because they only have UUCP connections. bye, mike ____ ____ / / / / / Michael K. Gschwind mike@vlsivie.at / / / / / Technical University, Vienna mike@vlsivie.uucp ---/ Voice: (++43).1.58801 8144 e182202@awituw01.bitnet / Fax: (++43).1.569697 ___/
jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) (07/18/90)
In article <4310127@hpindda.HP.COM> in comp.sys.hp, danh@hpindda.HP.COM (Dan Herington) writes: >... In defense of HP though, there are reasons why they don't use the internet. > >I am currently in the process of investigating ways of providing electronic >support for HP's Network Management Dev. Kit. My first suggestion was to >start a notes group - I used notes quite a bit when I was in the lab. What >I didn't realize is that the support I was getting was unsupported. I >found out that since much of the internet is privately and/or publically >funded for non-profit purposes, it is absolutely NOT kosher to support a >commercial product using the internet. Any of the questions that get >answered here are being answered by the individuals without the support of >HP - hence the obligatory "disclaimer." In article <1002@limbo.Intuitive.Com>, taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) replies with a list of companies which already are successfully giving support to users via the Internet, and points out that this is "the wave of the future". I'm afraid I don't see why HP interprets network use guidelines as prohibiting what we are requesting. Here is most of the file NETUSE.TXT from nis.nsf.net describing acceptable use (many other networks have guidelines similar to the NSFNET's: see ftp.math.lsa.umich.edu:/pub/emv/acceptable-use/* for some others): Interim NSFNET Acceptable Use Policy The purpose of NSFNET is to support research and education in and among academic institutions in the U.S. by providing access to unique resources and the opportunity for collaborative work. This statement represents a guide to the acceptable use of the NSFNET backbone. ... (1) All use must be consistent with the purposes of NSFNET. (2) The intent of the use policy is to make clear certain cases which are consistent with the purposes of NSFNET, not to exhaustively enumerate all such possible uses. (3) The NSF NSFNET Project Office may at any time make determinations that particular uses are or are not consistent with the purposes of NSFNET. Such determinations will be reported to the NSFNET Policy Advisory Committee and to the user community. (4) If a use is consistent with the purposes of NSFNET, then activities in direct support of that use will be considered consistent with the purposes of NSFNET. For example, administrative communications for the support infrastructure needed for research and instruction are acceptable. (5) Use in support of research or instruction at not-for-profit institutions of research or instruction in the United States is acceptable. (6) Use for a project which is part of or supports a research or instruction activity for a not-for-profit institution of research or instruction in the United States is acceptable, even if any or all parties to the use are located or employed elsewhere. For example, communications directly between industrial affiliates engaged in support of a project for such an institution is acceptable. (7) Use for commercial activities by for-profit institutions is generally not acceptable unless it can be justified under (4) above. These should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the NSF Project Office. (8) Use for research or instruction at for-profit institutions may or may not be consistent with the purposes of NSFNET, and will be reviewed by the NSF Project Office on a case-by-case basis. Now, the "support infrastructure" of many research and instruction insti- tutions connected to the Internet includes HP and Apollo computers. According to (4), it would be acceptable for HP to use NSFNET for administrative communications to assist its customers in their research and intructional use of HP computers. In fact, I think one could even interpret (4) and (7) as permitting "commercial" support by HP -- e.g., email communications to a particular customer in fulfilment of a commercial support contract -- provided the *customer's* work is "consistent with the purposes of NSFNET". A review by the Project Office might be needed to confirm this. However, now let's look at (7) itself. It states that COMMERCIAL activities by for-profit institutions are generally not acceptable. In what way is it a COMMERCIAL activity for HP to answer questions for free in newsgroups carried by NSFNET, or to provide an FTP archive accessible for free by anyone on the NSFNET? A public service with no charge to the recipient is not commercial in my book. In any case, the statement invites review by the NSFNET Project Office. Has HP made a submission to the Office for review? If so, could we be told what the Office said? Even if HP *has* asked in the past and failed, I suggest that a well structured *JOINT* submission from HP *and* interested US academic institutions could well be successful. The Australian Academic and Research Network AARNET is at present formulating policies for affiliate members, and I hope and expect that this policy will permit what we are after. A direct connection in Australia between HP and AARNET could then be considered even if US network guidelines do turn out to be as restrictive as HP seems to think. >Anyway, we are now looking at using CompuServe. Any comments? ... From Australia? You're joking. Dave Taylor has said it all here. (Sorry for the delay in Draft 2 of the "Netpower Open Letter". Hardware and newsfeed problems are my current excuse. It won't be much longer.) -- Jim Richardson Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au ACSNET: jimr@maths.su.oz FAX: +61 2 692 4534
wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (07/18/90)
In article <4310127@hpindda.HP.COM> danh@hpindda.HP.COM (Dan Herington) writes: > > Just so you won't think nobody at HP is listening ... i know that HP is listening and i do appreciate it. > > [ ... ] I > found out that since much of the internet is privately and/or publically > funded for non-profit purposes, it is absolutely NOT kosher to support a > commercial product using the internet. Any of the questions that get > answered here are being answered by the individuals without the support of > HP - hence the obligatory "disclaimer." i am not so sure about it being "absolutely NOT kosher to support a commercial product using the internet". uunet is a commercial enterprise and there are commercial products being distributed from it to other people via the internet. i believe the restriction is really that the end customer must be using the information or service for "internet approved activities." that is, if a professor has an HP computer for a research grant, then getting information to help him/her with the research project is perfectly ok. of course, you shouldnt just believe me, or anything anyone else says, you should really check it out. talking to the folks at uunet might be a very productive place to start though. also, do not confuse "internet" with "usenet". one of the major reasons why my company (Design Data) is on usenet is because of comp.sys.hp. we are not even on the internet and there for we dont fall under any of the internet restrictions. there are many many sites in the same situation. even if comp.sys.hp/apollo couldnt be allowed, there is the biz hierarchy that is definitely for commercial stuff. if a site doesnt think it can legally transmit the biz hierarchy, then it is up to them to not carry it. > > Anyway, we are now looking at using CompuServe. Any comments? Would you > be willing to use CompuServe to submit questions/problems for a > programmatic product? Is there anything that you would need that > CompuServe doesn't provide? i know that i would not use Compu$erve. as the sysadmin and manager here at design data, i do not have time to set up another news source like that. to me, it would be much more costly than i would think that it is worth. right now, quite a few people here read comp.sys.hp. how many people would i have to set up logins on compuserve? everyone? all of them reading during prime time hours, tieing up the modems? yech. no, compuserve, even if it were free, would not be used much here. (i would imagine things would be much worse for larger sites and universities) another thing to think about is that you dont have to go only one way or the other, you can do both. there is nothing that says that you cant have a group in Compu$erve that is the same as comp.sys.hp (or biz.sys.hp, or whatever). notes/news, in my opinion, could be one of the best ways to support a large user base. i really dont think that it would end up costing HP much, but it would help out a great deal of people. it is important to realize that no, it is not a replacement for things like software service and the response center, but software service and the response center are not a good replacement for news/notes. news is good at distributing information to a large number of people and to get information from a large number of people. software service and the response center is for one on one problem solving. the response center can get you information quickly about a problem you have now. news can get you information about a problem you dont have yet, but might have in the future. news is also good for getting lots of different ideas and options to a given problem. news can also get information to people quicker than snail mail in many cases. look at it this way: does HP support user groups? what is the difference between supporting an organized user group that meets at a physical location and supporting an electronic user group? user groups are not a replacement for software support of the response center either... anyway, just random thoughts... Wayne Schlitt Development Manager Design Data