plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) (03/14/89)
Microport isn't dead. Microport isn't bankrupt. Microport isn't out of business. We are still shipping product. We are still answering tech support calls. Life isn't all roses, though. Slow cash flow is the reason we weren't at Uniforum. Adverse working conditions is the reason there hasn't been much net activity lately. We are sharing a building with Televideo, and our Usenet node/BBS machine is in their computer room. 2 weeks ago, someone stole a Trailblazer and 2 other modems from our running systems. If that wasn't enough, every once in a while they turn off our machines. It's a bitch. To top it all off, the wiring in the building's phone room is so screwed up that the phone guy can't even hook up the in state 800-number lines. I can only hope that the out of state lines work! Stay tuned to this station, news at 11. -John Plocher
learn@igloo.Scum.COM (william vajk) (03/15/89)
In article <315@uport.UUCP> John Plocher writes: > Microport isn't dead. Microport isn't bankrupt. Microport isn't out of > business. We are still shipping product. Thanks for the good news, John. Now can you tell us when Microport is going to FIX the broken 286 product ? Bill Vajk | A person of quality is never intimidated. learn@igloo |
plocher%babelfish@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (03/30/89)
In article <315@uport.UUCP> March 13, 1988, John Plocher (me) writes: >Microport isn't [dead,bankrupt,out of business]. As of Monday March 27, those comments of mine are really no longer true. Facts: Microport has filed chapter 11 All of the technical staff (Tech support, Engineering) is gone (either other jobs or other job offers) The major buyer I hinted at in an earlier posting has backed out (because the technical staff wasn't staying on) But the company IS still in business. John Plocher (No longer constrained by employer-employee regulations at Microport)
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/30/89)
In article <96473@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.com (John Plocher) writes: >John Plocher >(No longer constrained by employer-employee regulations at Microport) So, now that you can speak freely, what really was the problem at Microport? Why were there so many unfixed bugs in Microport System V/AT? As others have asked, will Microport release source to its drivers, so others can fix bugs? -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
plocher%babelfish@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (03/31/89)
In article <6385@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >So, now that you can speak freely, what really was the problem at >Microport? The number 1 problem was simply too much work for too few people. There was no support from upper management to hire more people, so the engineering was done by a staff of 4 or 5: 1 person for 286 1 person for Dos-Merge (Also involved with support) 1 person for 386 and 1 (or 2 at times) for misc projects and support There were 6 people in the support group, of which one also ran the Merge project and another was one of the "floating engineers" >Why were there so many unfixed bugs in Microport System V/AT? Isn't it obvious now ? ... >As others have asked, will Microport release source to its drivers, so >others can fix bugs? I wouldn't think so; they are a "valuable" asset and can/could be sold to pay creditors. Remember, Microport is still in business, but I am no longer there. I tried to obtain the legal rights to Microport's driver source before I left, but because of SEC regulations about insider trading I would have had to pay "full asset value" for them, and I didn't have the ~$250K that it would have taken. :-( John Plocher
bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (03/31/89)
Before starting, I have been a frequent critic of Microport and have often challenged John's (my words) "change of stripes" from simple user to high muckety muck. Thanks to Rahul for asking and more thanks to John for answering with such candor. It now remains for the rest of us to figure out where to go from here since (I bitched and growled about this ad nauseam, I'll try to exercise restraint) we're all adrift. In article <96729@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.COM (John Plocher) writes: >In article <6385@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >>So, now that you can speak freely, what really was the problem at >>Microport? > > The number 1 problem was simply too much work for too few people. > > There was no support from upper management to hire more people, so > the engineering was done by a staff of 4 or 5: Confirmed! I quit uPort before John's watch and suggested this very situation. May I propose a reincarnation? Microport grew out of an ill advised Digital Research fiasco. I understand that Chuck Hickey's gone now, but is there space in the situation for another Lazarus number? I NEVER had any difficulty believing the dedication of the techs I dealt with, it was management (in my opinion) who "pissed in the grits". John, is there any possibility this could be recouped? They, after all, hired you (also in my opinion) to attenuate the noise. No criticism intended, but they had to move you and charm you, any whoofle dust left? >>As others have asked, will Microport release source to its drivers, so >>others can fix bugs? > > I wouldn't think so; they are a "valuable" asset and can/could be > sold to pay creditors. Remember, Microport is still in business, > but I am no longer there. > > I tried to obtain the legal rights to Microport's driver source > before I left, but because of SEC regulations about insider trading > I would have had to pay "full asset value" for them, and I didn't > have the ~$250K that it would have taken. :-( > > John Plocher Oh ouch! I had a similar situation a long time ago. The thing had no salvage value until they found out I thought it did. Nonetheless, and my anger and outrage notwithstanding, I think that uPort management got their just desserts. So whadda WE, the senseless devils who provided the cash, do? That's not the imminent death of the net, just a question from someone who will not allow a fully licensed 3.0e on his '386 and who isn't as happy with V/AT 2.4 as he was with 2.3... -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: {texbell,att,killer,sun!daver,cs.utexas.edu}!ssbn!bill
doug@feedme.UUCP (Doug Salot) (04/01/89)
In article <96729@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.COM (John Plocher) writes: > I tried to obtain the legal rights to Microport's driver source > before I left, but because of SEC regulations about insider trading > I would have had to pay "full asset value" for them, and I didn't > have the ~$250K that it would have taken. :-( I might be willing to contribute a few $K and some engineering resources if someone were to negotiate a Microport buyout and form a limited partnership. A global support network comprised of Microport users, anyone? -- Doug Salot || doug@feedme.UUCP || ...{zardoz,dhw68k}!feedme!doug
beattie@visenix.UUCP (Brian Beattie) (04/02/89)
In article <310@feedme.UUCP> doug@feedme.UUCP (Doug Salot) writes:
=
=I might be willing to contribute a few $K and some engineering resources
=if someone were to negotiate a Microport buyout and form a limited
=partnership. A global support network comprised of Microport users,
=anyone?
=
=
=--
=Doug Salot || doug@feedme.UUCP || ...{zardoz,dhw68k}!feedme!doug
I might be able to do likewise.
--
_ANYONE_ | Brian Beattie (703)471-7552
can sell software| 11525 Hickory Cluster, Reston, VA. 22090
that has already | beattie@visenix.UU.NET
been written | ...uunet!visenix!beattiebill@cosi.UUCP (Bill Michaelson) (04/04/89)
In article <292@visenix.UUCP>, beattie@visenix.UUCP (Brian Beattie) writes: ] In article <310@feedme.UUCP> doug@feedme.UUCP (Doug Salot) writes: ] =I might be willing to contribute a few $K and some engineering resources ] =if someone were to negotiate a Microport buyout and form a limited ] =partnership. A global support network comprised of Microport users, ] =anyone? ] ] I might be able to do likewise. A user-owned software cooperative? That sounds real interesting. How would such a thing be managed? What should the stated purpose of such a company be? Simply to support existing users? To develop new products? It could be a gem or a turkey, I suppose. But if such a thing is viable, I would consider becoming a part of it. I do hate to think that I'd be throwing good money after bad, though. It's already cost me nearly $2K for software/updates/support of dubious value. -- Bill Michaelson - Reply to: princeton!mccc!cosi!bill also at... Voice 609-771-6705 CompuServe 72416,1026
bill@alembic.UUCP (Bill Hatch) (04/04/89)
I have recently seen several news articles hinting that Microport may be going out of business or at least phasing down their Unix effort. I recently checked their BBS - the source code postings seem to have few, if any, recent additions. John Plocher seems to have burned out and left. To date i am a satisfied Microport V386 customer. Can anybody tell me what is happening with Microport so that I can help with the planning of my company's evolution to Unix. I have worked very hard to move us forward from a DOS and VMS enviornment to an integrated Unix approach. At this point, serious problems with our Unix O/S vendor could wipe out some of this progress. Specific things we need to know include the following: 1. Does Microport or a corporate successor plan to continue providing 80386 Unix and upgrades to Unix. 2. Will Microport provide the hooks to access graphics memory as is available on their 80286 version of Unix. I have heard that Xenix now offers these hooks for their 80386 release. 3. Has Microport been selling enough software to stay in business? I have no information on the relative sales figures for the 386 Unix vendors. Please respond by E-mail to "uunet!bts!bill". My news feed has recently been less than reliable - thus even if you post a reply to news, please send me an E-mail copy. Thanks for any information on the above.
root@spdyne.UUCP (04/08/89)
> In article <315@uport.UUCP> March 13, 1988, John Plocher writes: > >Microport isn't [dead,bankrupt,out of business]. > > As of Monday March 27, those comments of mine are really no longer true. > Facts: > Microport has filed chapter 11 > All of the technical staff (Tech support, Engineering) is gone > (either other jobs or other job offers) > But the company IS still in business. > > John Plocher > (No longer constrained by employer-employee regulations at Microport) As of 4/7, (today) they don't seem to be answering their bloody phone either. And I need to setup some sorta TCP/IP to my Novell Lan... According to Micom [who the doc's from uport say they support], I need to get some software from Uport in order to run it...Looks like I may be out of luck unless we all buy them out... [I will kick in a $K or two to that end..] -Chert Pellett root@spdyne
root@spdyne.UUCP (04/08/89)
> In article <315@uport.UUCP> March 13, 1988, John Plocher writes: > >Microport isn't [dead,bankrupt,out of business]. > > As of Monday March 27, those comments of mine are really no longer true. > Facts: > Microport has filed chapter 11 This is re-org. right? > All of the technical staff (Tech support, Engineering) is gone > (either other jobs or other job offers) > But the company IS still in business. > > John Plocher > (No longer constrained by employer-employee regulations at Microport) As of 4/7, (today) they don't seem to be answering their bloody phone either. {Opps, Someone just answered after 40 or so rings....} Not sales staff however...They are gone too I presume.... And I need to setup some sorta TCP/IP to my Novell Lan... According to Micom [who the doc's from uport say they support], I need to get some software from Uport in order to run it...Looks like I may be out of luck unless we all buy them out... [I will kick in a $K or two to that end..] -Chert Pellett root@spdyne
eric@egsner.UUCP (Eric Schnoebelen) (04/09/89)
In article <1700017@spdyne> root@spdyne.UUCP (Chert Pellett) writes: -> In article <315@uport.UUCP> March 13, 1988, John Plocher writes: -> >Microport isn't [dead,bankrupt,out of business]. -> -> As of Monday March 27, those comments of mine are really no longer true. -> Facts: -> Microport has filed chapter 11 - - This is re-org. right? Yes, chapter 11 bankruptcy allows the company to continue operating while undergoing reorganization, or otherwise working out an agreement with its creditors. ( this has been know to last for years and decades in some industries ) -> All of the technical staff (Tech support, Engineering) is gone -> (either other jobs or other job offers) -> But the company IS still in business. - - As of 4/7, (today) they don't seem to be answering their bloody phone -either. {Opps, Someone just answered after 40 or so rings....} -Not sales staff however...They are gone too I presume.... Well, I too spoke with someone at Microport Friday afternoon. I was calling about a driver, but while I was on the phone I asked about the status of the company. The gentleman at the other end commented that there was a big of meeting going on with another possible buyer for the company. Things seemed to be looking good at that time ( about 1p PDT ) - -Chert Pellett - root@spdyne On Monday, I am going to call Microport and talk to someone about the proposed "net" buyout that I have been working on. I will keep working on it in case the existing purchaser of Microport backs out also. Comments? Opinions? Flames? :-) -- Eric Schnoebelen egsner!eric@texbell.swbt.com ...!texbell!egsner!eric egs@u-word.dallas.tx.us ...!killer!u-word!egs
slf@well.UUCP (Sharon Lynne Fisher) (04/10/89)
y
> As of 4/7, (today) they don't seem to be answering their bloody phone
I've been able to get them to answer the phone, but I'm told that there's
only one person -- a Jim Brain -- who's authorized to talk to the press,
and he's always "with a client." Those exact words, as though the person
answering the phone has a post-it over the phone that reads, "If somebody
from the press calls, say that Jim Brain is with a client."root@spdyne.UUCP (04/12/89)
> So, for all those Microport users - there is a way to make good > on what otherwise could be a bad situation. Here it is: > > INTERACTIVE will provide a 75% credit against the purchase of 386/ix products > for each Microport product purchases. Therefore if someone purchased a system > from Microport at $500 then INTERACTIVE will give a $375 credit against the > purchase of 386/ix!!! and for resellers its discountable....and for how ever > many systems you want to upgrade.....and they will honor the remainder of the > Microport support contracts for users upgrading to 386/ix. > > Not bad. > > Orders can be placed through INTERACTIVE's Distribution group in Hollis, NH > at 800-537-5324. One question tho.... Do I have to send in all my U-port disks/manuals etc? U-port has (had?) *much* better manuals than Interactive. As I recall I paid about $1,500 for all the Uport stuff, thus a credit of $1125 for 386/ix? [If not, I might pick up the system to get the text prep...] I presume, that If I am assigning the registration rights to interactive, that I will lose the greenhills compiler? [Does interactive work on 25 sector drives?] Sounds like a good deal, except that I have used interactive before... I'd like to pick up the text prep tools from interactive, but I don't care for the rest of the system. [A wonderful example is the way that 'su' is broke: if you su [to any user or root], from any tty other than the console, it will log you off!... Might as well rm /bin/su... I tried to su to uucp once to fixup the Systems file... Boom - login prompt...] -Chert Pellett root@spdyne
root@spdyne.UUCP (04/13/89)
> So, for all those Microport users - there is a way to make good > on what otherwise could be a bad situation. Here it is: > > INTERACTIVE will provide a 75% credit against the purchase of 386/ix products >for each Microport product purchases. Therefore if someone purchased a system > from Microport at $500 then INTERACTIVE will give a $375 credit against the > purchase of 386/ix!!! and for resellers its discountable....and for how ever > many systems you want to upgrade.....and they will honor the remainder of the > Microport support contracts for users upgrading to 386/ix. > > Not bad. > > Orders can be placed through INTERACTIVE's Distribution group in Hollis, NH > at 800-537-5324. One question tho.... Do I have to send in all my U-port disks/manuals etc? U-port has (had?) *much* better manuals than Interactive. As I recall I paid about $1,500 for all the Uport stuff, thus a credit of $1125 for 386/ix? [If I don't have to send back the disks, I might pick up the system to get the text prep...] I presume, that If I am assigning the registration rights to interactive, that I will lose the greenhills compiler? Does interactive work on 25 sector drives? I have a Compaq and If they don't I lose at least 20 Meg of storage space off my 65 Meg drive. [And I have to screw around with it the way that I had to with Uport..] Sounds like a good deal, except that I have used interactive before... I'd like to pick up the text prep tools from interactive, but I don't care for the rest of the system. [A wonderful example is the way that 'su' is broke: if you su [to any user or root], from any tty other than the console, it will log you off!... Might as well rm /bin/su... I tried to su to uucp once to fixup the Systems file... Boom - login prompt...] -Chert Pellett root@spdyne
plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (04/14/89)
+---- In article <1700020@spdyne> Chert Pellett writes: | I'd like to pick up the text prep tools from interactive, but I don't care | for the rest of the system. [A wonderful example is the way that 'su' is | broke: if you su [to any user or root], from any tty other than the console, | it will log you off! +---- In the directory /etc/default there are several text files which you might want to look at. One of them is called login, another good one is called su. Edit these and Delete the "CONSOLE=/dev/console" line in each file. This will allow root logins anywhere (/etc/default/login) and allow anyone to su from anywhere (/etc/default/su) (as long as they know the correct passwords!) You must be root to edit these files. Don't blame ISC for this, it is a Good Thing to have! Can you spell S E C U R I T Y ? Yes, I knew you could. :-) -John Plocher
soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (04/19/89)
In article <259@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: :In article <1700018@spdyne> root@spdyne.UUCP writes: :(referring to 386/ix) :>[A wonderful example is the way that 'su' is :>broke: if you su [to any user or root], from any tty other than the console, :>it will log you off!... Might as well rm /bin/su... I tried to su to uucp once :>to fixup the Systems file... Boom - login prompt...] : :I've seen this problem on 386/ix. Any program that prompted for a password, :be it login, passwd, or su, would log you off from a remote terminal. I found :putting a null modem on the serial port fixed this problem. It seemed the :386/ix serial drivers needed carrier detect to work properly. Your mixing up two "problems" here, the first is supposed to be there, because of security considerations, you can turn it off if you really want to (or so I'm told). The second problem is an acknowledged bug (which Interactive to date has not seemed too interested in actually fixing) in the serial driver. -- Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment Until the next maps go out: moegate!soley@ontenv.UUCP if you roll your own: uunet!{attcan!ncrcan|mnetor!ontmoh}!ontenv!moegate!soley