debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (09/22/88)
In article <433@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes
(or should I say "flames") about Bell Technologies not supporting their
Unix.
I'm not gonna repeat his arguments here, but I would like to express my
feelings towards support, not only by Bell Technologies, but also by
Microport, or SCO, or anyone supplying Unix.
I don't understand why customers need a support-contract (available or not)
to get bugs fixed.
When you buy Unix you get a set of manuals explaining (briefly but rather
completely) what each program or routine should do and how to use it.
If one of the programs or routines do not do what the manual says it is
BROKEN. It means you did not get what you paid for and you should get a
bug-fix FOR FREE. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between getting bugs fixed
and getting support to get help with manuals you don't understand, or to
get the product to do something it is not intended to do right away, such
as adding new devices. If you want support, it sounds natural to me that
you have to pay for it. If you want bug-fixes you should get them for FREE.
If you buy a car xyz, and some people find out that all cars xyz have say
brakes that fail every 500 miles, the company will call-in all the cars xyz
and fix the problem for free. I see no reason why this should be different
for software.
Have you also noticed the kind of disclaimers you find on most software
products: "...makes no warranties, either express or implied, regarding the
enclosed computer software package, its merchandability or its fitness for
any particular purpose."
Know what this means? You just paid your money for NOTHING. If the floppies
are completely blank, we are not responsible. If you are able to use this
software at all, you are very lucky and we have nothing to do with it.
The only thing I can say about these kinda things is: never buy such software.
Compare the following part of a Sun license:
"Sun warrants that the Licensed Software shall substantially conform to its
users manual, as it exists at the date of delivery, for a ninety (90) days
from the date of delivery."
So at least you get something from them.
I have no experience with Bell Technologies, but if they do support
installation in the sense that you get your money back if the floppies are
bad, I don't think they have a leg to stand on when you discover bugs. The
manuals describe what the product should do, and if it doesn't, the floppies
did not contain the right information so you should at least get your money
back. The fact that your floppies contain exactly what they put on them does
not matter. They should contain programs that work.
I know that messages like mine are containing more and more noise and
less signal, but I wouldn't mind if all reader's of this group would express
their opininion, so that at least the vendors would be aware of the fact that
every license should cover free bug-fixes, and that this has nothing to do
with support!
Paul. (This may not express my employer's opinion, but I hope it does
express many others' opinion too)ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (09/23/88)
In article <8229@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes: >In article <433@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes >(or should I say "flames") about Bell Technologies not supporting their >Unix. >Have you also noticed the kind of disclaimers you find on most software >products: "...makes no warranties, either express or implied, regarding the >enclosed computer software package, its merchandability or its fitness for >any particular purpose." >Know what this means? You just paid your money for NOTHING. If the floppies Not only do software outfits shove this kind of thing down your throat, some have the audacity to try to collect royalties on what you do with what you've bought or tell you when or where or when you can use it. As an academic who teaches courses in [Japanese] business history, I've often thought that either I or the University should receive royalties for any commercially valuable ideas that come out of my lectures or those of other faculty. The idea of being able to charge extra to explain the ambiguities and mistakes in my lectures is very, very appealing, to say the least. Better yet, I'd like to collect a bit of tuition everytime I revise my lecture notes. Of course, when what I and other faculty have to say is a crock, then we'll hide behind the "make no warranties" clause. -:) Earl H. Kinmonth History Department University of California, Davis Davis, California 95616 916-752-1636/0776 INTERNET: ucdked!cck@ucdavis.edu UUCP: ucdavis!ucdked!cck LOCAL: ucdked!cck@ucdavis
mike@spca6.UUCP (Michael Nagel Jr.) (09/23/88)
In article <8229@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes: >I don't understand why customers need a support-contract (available or not) >to get bugs fixed. You mean you have to pay for support when you buy the product via their higher price and then have to buy a support-contract on top of it :-). >When you buy Unix you get a set of manuals explaining (briefly but rather >completely) what each program or routine should do and how to use it. What if manuals are optional, as per Bell Tech. >If one of the programs or routines do not do what the manual says it is >BROKEN. It means you did not get what you paid for and you should get a >bug-fix FOR FREE. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between getting bugs fixed >and getting support to get help with manuals you don't understand, Here's the rub, a lot of bugs I've had reported to me in my consulting days were those misunderstandings you mentioned, I still had to spend time (and lots of it) figuring out what they were talking about and telling them what they were doing wrong. To them it was a bug, to me it was their own stupid mistake and a waiste of my time (well not quite, they paid for it). > If you want bug-fixes you should get them for FREE. You do get them for FREE, in the next release. When I decided to buy Bell Tech's Unix, price (and their more than reasonable update cost, $50), was the deciding factor. I was not worried about support and am willing to wait for the next release to get BUGS fixxed for almost free. All in all, I very happy with the product. I've had it for three months now and have been able to work around any bugs I did find, and there weren't that many. Ok, maybe I got lucky in that I have perty standard hardware, or I could say I was smart in picking it out. >I have no experience with Bell Technologies, but if they do support >installation in the sense that you get your money back if the floppies are >bad, I don't think they have a leg to stand on when you discover bugs. The >manuals describe what the product should do, and if it doesn't, the floppies >did not contain the right information so you should at least get your money >back. What if the manual is wrong, guess they could send an update to the manual and say now it works ;-). You do get your money back, even if you just say you changed your mind and don't want it. Try that with someone elses product. > The fact that your floppies contain exactly what they put on them does >not matter. They should contain programs that work. They do. > but I wouldn't mind if all reader's of this group would express >their opininion, so that at least the vendors would be aware of the fact that >every license should cover free bug-fixes, and that this has nothing to do >with support! OK. I think its great we have a choice. If you want to pay more for the same soft- ware go ahead. If you want to buy a good product at a reasonable price, go ahead, but don't whine about later. You (and I) made the choice. Im just glad that choice its there to be made. Lately Mr. Rotow has been talking about support with v3.2, I hope I still have a choice in whether I want it or not. I've never called Bell Tech with a guestion about Unix, I have no plans to start now and don't want to have to pay for a privilage I don't intend to use. The only time I do call, other than to order something else, is to report a bug and a workaround if I have one (I make sure its a real bug befor I call, I have access to several other systems and system programmers). Here Bell suffers, there does need to be a better way to report bugs. It gets a little frustrating calling 10 to 20 times before you can talk to someone. Dimitri are you listening, here Microport is way ahead. A bbs would be nice, or how about someone from tech-support we could mail to. >Paul. (This may not express my employer's opinion, but I hope it does > express many others' opinion too) Me too.
rfarris@serene.CTS.COM (Rick Farris) (09/24/88)
Actually, I thought Dimitri's response was pretty reasonable. He's been
flamed a lot by people that say that "If the manuals say it should do this
then it's Bell Tech's responsibility to ensure that they do." I'm not sure
that's so.
As long as Bell Tech spells out clearly that what you are buying is strictly
the release as it comes from IAM, with no changes, and all they are doing
is acting as the middle man, I think they are providing a valuable service.
I mean how many times does Bell have to tell you "If you want support, buy
Xenix?" I think that if you listen to them and then buy the IAM product
anyway, well, caveat emptor.
I do have a little bit of problem with the Bell Tech $145 Unix ads, though.
And since I proved how reasonable I am in the last three paragraphs, maybe
you should reconsider them, Dimitri. :-)
_______________________________
Rick Farris | rfarris@serene.cts.com | Voice (619) 259-6793
POB M | ...!uunet!serene!rfarris | BBS 259-7757
Del Mar, CA 92014 |_______________________________| serene.UUCP 259-3704dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) (09/24/88)
In article <8229@alice.UUCP>, debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) writes: > > every license should cover free bug-fixes, and that this has nothing to do > with support! Paul - I agree with you that bug fixes are a different topic than support required to teach people how to read manuals, etc., but I strongly disagree that *everybody* should be forced to buy guaranteed free bug fixes for life. I don't think you meant to give the impression of limitless, infinite bug fix support in all cases, but by looking at the end points of your argument we can see flaws which are harder to see looking at the reasonable middle. Sure, SUN offers a software warranty on some of their products: what do those products cost? We offer a software warranty on some of our software products too ... We just completed a software job on a consulting contract where we warranted the software just like you proposed above (well, we did impose a one year limit) and we charged well over $50,000 for the item. Given the nature of UNIX, the one thing you know for sure is that bugs will exist in the code, and that bugs will crawl out into the light of day over a period of extended use. What's the more reasonable way of dealing with those bugs... a) Charge everybody hard cash *up-front* enough money to guarantee free bug fixes forever or for a period of time? --- You've got to collect enough to cover a series of unknown risks, so good-bye sub-$1000 UNIX! b) Put out code that's been reasonably tested to minimize bugs and then offer reasonably priced updates to deal with bugs that have been discovered? --- Most people want to switch to future releases anyway (to take advantage new features like compaq tape drivers, y'know! :) ), and some people are not bothered by many bugs. That way, you don't have to pay for bug fix support that you don't need. I respect your desire to reach the quid pro quo that you want, but what's so wrong about other people cutting the deals that they desire? The vast majority of public and private software deals I have seen involve the usual "bug fixes are done through extra cost updates" deal. From the people I've talked to here in the valley, the disclaimer of warranty everyone applies is motivated by the general failure of our legal system to evolve a reasonable way to deal with partial and general releases in the context of the peculiar technical indeterminacies (is that a real word?) of the software business. Note that the software business *is* peculiarly indeterminate; in our hardware line, we often provide total, complete, even *lifetime* warranties with no funny strings attached. That's because hardware has fewer degrees of freedom than software. Sure, people can get together and force the legislature to pass laws that require limitless warranties on software, but that doesn't change the fundamental technical nature of the problem anymore than the legislature can get together and pass a law to create a program that can predict whether or not a given program contains an infinite loop (or, for that matter, make "pi" equal to 3.0). - Dimitri Rotow
dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) (09/24/88)
In article <14632@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: > Not only do software outfits shove this kind of thing down your throat, > some have the audacity to try to collect royalties on what you do with > what you've bought or tell you when or where or when you can use it. As > an academic who teaches courses in [Japanese] business history, I've I don't like this sort of thing either (continuing royalties on compiler use, etc), but it *is* their property. Are you going to have the "audacity" to try to tell people what they should do with copies of your next book? How will you feel if someone buys a copy of your book, and then reprints it for commercial sale? How about if some schlock, no-name, non-accredited, advertise-on-the-back-of-a-match-book, correspondance school starts selling video tapes of you doing your Japanese business history thing that were taken by one of *your* students, who duly signed up and attended *your* lectures? Have faith in the free market! Excesses tend to get corrected. Diverse products tend to spring up for diverse needs (CP/M, DOS, OS/2 ....). Dimitri Rotow [Steve Dyer and I have agreed to change places this week for the most continuous followups to related postings. By mutual agreement, we're not cross posting this stuff to comp.unix.xenix no matter how much those "zealots" ( :) to qoute a memorable former posting) might be interested in these grave social matters. Let's keep the flames up high, as I am on vacation next week....] PS -- I really do hate that continuing royalty thing and will never buy such a compiler.
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (09/25/88)
Ok, Dimitri and all others who followed up on my complaint regarding bug fixes versus software support. There is of course a good reason for not providing life-time free bug-fixes, because that may turn out to be extremely expensive, and there also is a good reason for not distinguishing support from bug-fixes because many customers think they want a bug-fix whereas they really ask for support. We have a long experience with some Unix-versions at our University. When we found bugs we reported them to our distributor, and some time later we got updates (not upgrades) and never paid a penny for them. (it did take more than a few weeks usually, things don't move that fast between Europe and the US). When I'm happy with my Unix, why should I pay for an upgrade with some bug fixes and some new bugs introduced in new features, when all I want is bug fixes in my (old) Unix? After all, we DO get messages on the net saying "this command used to work in version X and no longer works in version X+1, can anyone tell me why?" I sent my flaming message because I noticed that many users of a Unix-without bug-fixes-or-support do not know what they are getting into, and I still feel that sales-people don't know what this kind of deal means either. The fact that Bell-Technologies has a money-back guarantee is a very positive aspect, and I hope they continue this policy, because people WILL realize that this Unix doesn't work on their machine with 20 nonstandard components and notice that BT will not support them, so hopefully BT will continue to advise these customers to go buy another Unix which offers support. Unfortunately, nothing prevents a new company from starting next month, beat the best price by another $50 and offer essentially the same Unix without any guarantee whatsoever. I would not be unhappy with this cheap Unix at all, and I understand very well that many other people who have access to the source of some Unix-version (at their company or university...) can work around bugs by studying their source, and maybe by replacing the broken programs or device drivers by their own code. I have done so too in the past. But I would strongly advise against buying any Unix without a minimal guarantee if you do not have access to source code (for a related Unix system, need not be exactly the same). It is exactly the "ordinary" person who wants to "give Unix a try" who will all to easily go for the cheapest Unix and be very unhappy. I am affraid that a company like Bell Technologies will not be able to make sure there retailers WILL warn users about the limited guarantee and non-support of this Unix. After all, this whole discussion started BECAUSE some people bought a Unix without any support, and without being informed. Paul.
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (09/26/88)
In article <231@serene.CTS.COM> rfarris@serene.cts.com (Rick Farris) writes: >I do have a little bit of problem with the Bell Tech $145 Unix ads, though. >And since I proved how reasonable I am in the last three paragraphs, maybe >you should reconsider them, Dimitri. :-) > > _______________________________ >Rick Farris | rfarris@serene.cts.com | Voice (619) 259-6793 >POB M | ...!uunet!serene!rfarris | BBS 259-7757 >Del Mar, CA 92014 |_______________________________| serene.UUCP 259-3704 Actually I think Bell should do a take off on the Marine/Navy recruiting ads: "Bell Technologies is looking for a few good customers. If you've got the guts to go mano-a-mano with a pure AT&T/Intel Unix with no sissy "SysViz" tools. And if you eat bugs for breakfast and come back for seconds. And you don't know how to dial a phone when you need technical support, then you're JUST the customer we're looking for. Let all the sissys join Microport and ISC, we've got a lean/mean unix at a lean/mean price, just waiting for someone with the "Right Stuff" to use it. Call us today and show the rest of the world just what you're made of. Bell Tech unix, it's not just a unix, it's an adventure!" What do ya think? Do I have a job Dimitri? :) On the serious side I think Bell is wasting their time selling Unix, the W.G.E. is MUCH MUCH MUCH hotter than their unix if you ask me. I mean after all, there are piles of unix vendors out there, but there's only one W.G.E.! Scott Turner scotty@l5comp -or- uunet!l5comp!scotty
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (09/26/88)
In article <277@belltec.UUCP> dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) writes: >I don't like this sort of thing either (continuing royalties on compiler >use, etc), but it *is* their property. Are you going to have the "audacity" >to try to tell people what they should do with copies of your next book? How >will you feel if someone buys a copy of your book, and then reprints it for >commercial sale? How about if some schlock, no-name, non-accredited, >advertise-on-the-back-of-a-match-book, correspondance school >starts selling video tapes of you doing your Japanese business history thing >that were taken by one of *your* students, who duly signed up and attended >*your* lectures? Not a fair comparison I'd say. More closely matching would be to ask the man what he'd think of those readers of his book using what they learned from it to make a pile of money. Should they cut him in since they would never have made it with out his help (through his book)? As for the taping issue, I'm pretty sure that's already covered by the college in the fine print you sign your life away on when you register. Besides, wouldn't you rather cut him in so that you can get him fresh rather than having him crawl in exhausted, with blood shot eyes, and slurred speach after a hard night with 3 frosh co-eds and a Stroh's 36 Pak? :-) >Dimitri Rotow [Steve Dyer and I have agreed to change places this week Scott Turner scotty@l5comp -or- uunet!l5comp!scotty
dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) (10/01/88)
In article <4935@spca6.UUCP>, mike@spca6.UUCP (Michael Nagel Jr.) writes: ... > you listening, here Microport is way ahead. A bbs would be nice, or how about > someone from tech-support we could mail to. > If you have facimile, you can fax us at 415-659-9765. we're revamping support for 3.2. support will still be unbundled, but we will have a variety of "play for pay" plans. As part of that, we'll be going electronic (mail, eventually bbs) in customer support. In the meantime, you can mail bugs to ~!pacbell!belltec!bugs This is a *no* acknowledge, one-way address to mail bug reports on UNIX System V/386. As Release 3.2 cures many different bugs in earlier releases, you might want to check 3.2 before mailing in a new bug. We do not promise to fix or turn around bugs mailed to this address, but we will collect all the entries and pass them through to the Intel/AT&T chief bug collectors for the next release. - Dimitri Rotow