bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (08/07/88)
In article <402@uport.UUCP> plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >> [stuff about meetings ] >> Please explain to everyone on the net how those >>poor unspecting people who glading ordered and paid for Dosmerge, found it >>very interesting to see that what they purchased was a "PRE-RELEASE". > >History, not an excuse: Bull! Applicable history, but see below. > Locus did Dos Merge for us. They kept shipping us "pre release" > versions. The decision was made (for better or worse) to ship > the stuff and to upgrade users when the real thing became avaliable. > > V/386 DosMerge 1.1 (The *real thing*, not a Pre Release) is in > final engineering (Monday it starts QA) As soon as I approve it, > it will go into production and out to our customers. > > It is based on Unix V/386 ver 3.0, and will be handled as an > upgrade package: > > Those with Upgrade contracts will have V/386 and DM > shipped to them automatically. > > Those w/o an upgrade contract must purchase the Unix upgrade > from V/386 2.2 to V/386 3.0; the DM upgrade is free. > > Contact your sales rep for details. I have a letter, signed by an officer of Microport, thanking me for being a "pioneer", promising me I'd get the latest and greatest no later than May 1. Your phone people resist approach, now you say I must have an "Upgrade contract", gimme a break! I bought your stuff, full price, not, knowing that Locus was yanking you around, I went on what *MICROPORT* said. I wasn't dealing with Locus, I was dealing with *MICROPORT*. You say (correctly) that this was "before your watch", fair enough. If you don't want to reneg on your officers' promises, then stop teasing, stop posting, just deliver. [ I have already commented on the rest. Sigh! ] > If *some* of you want to help with a "real" beta, send me mail. Why? The only credibility they have is you. Show us something. Prove me wrong, I welcome it. I was in a `"real"' beta and didn't even know it. Now I have to pay (or so it seems from what you wrote) for what I was supposed to get as a "pioneer". I'm eager and willing to be flamed and proven wrong... > This means being willing and able to provide in depth testing > on various hardware platforms and with different environments. > Timeframe is soon, duration < 2 weeks; quantity is *small*. I > want quality beta testers, not quantity. I know we all are tired > of Pre Releases and Betas and whathaveyou, so my requirements are > stiff: > > "Beta" does NOT mean "production" or "placate an upset customer" > or "get a free upgrade"; now that I'm here, Beta means BETA, and > not early shipping. OK, I'll disqualify myself because I have paid cash to be a beta and now the rules have changed. Used to be we got to pay full retail to do beta, now we have "stiff requirements". No sir! Credibility (admitted) or not, *MICROPORT* will not get another sous of my money or another drop of my sweat until they deliver what they promised in the first place. I have it in writing... Sorry for the line eater food but it seems that I just can't satisfy it otherwise without eliminating some of what John wrote, that's not apropos to my follow-up -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,rutgers,sun!daver,uunet!bigtex}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
samperi@marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi) (08/07/88)
In article <402@uport.UUCP> plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >I'm new here at Microport; meetings are one of the only ways I have of >"learning the ropes". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ My past experience with Microport leads me to believe that you will be able to serve your costumers better if you DO NOT "learn the ropes;" just use your natural sense of fairness... > If *some* of you want to help with a "real" beta, send me mail. ^^^^ Beta testing is hard work, time consuming and tedious, and the least you should do, short of paying your beta testers, is to provide "real" beta test feedback. This means, for example, not telling your beta tester that the "fix" for a compiler bug that he spent many days isolating is to buy another vendors compiler. Your beta testers also deserve informed feedback from someone at Microport who knows what he/she is talking about (I can give many examples where this was not the case). And when you can't fix a problem, you shouldn't promise your beta testers that you will send the relevant source code, so he/she can work on it (for free), and then not follow through. Software testing and bug fixing is undoubtedly your major technical activity (as it is for all large software systems), so your beta testers are essentially doing a large portion of your work for you, for free, and I think you owe them more respect than you have given them in the past. > "Beta" does NOT mean "production" or "placate an upset customer" > or "get a free upgrade"; now that I'm here, Beta means BETA, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (what?) Yes, and beta testing should be a VOLUNTARY activity. -- Dominick Samperi, NYC samperi@acf8.NYU.EDU samperi@marob.MASA.COM cmcl2!phri!marob uunet!hombre!samperi (^ ell)
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (08/08/88)
[Sorry, there is some flame in here.... Couldn't be helped] In article <402@uport.UUCP> plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >> I tried calling you >>the very next day. You were in a meeting. And the day after, you were also >>in a meeting. Now knowing, full well that people in California are either in >>a meeting or at lunch, I found it reassuring at that at least you were in the >>building. > >#$%$#@#$ meetings! I'd rather be at lunch. :-() munch munch ... > >I'm new here at Microport; meetings are one of the only ways I have of >"learning the ropes". Sorry if I can't always jump when the phone rings, >but if I'd spend all my time on the horn I couldn't get anything *else* done. Ok... that's reasonable... but now on to my question: Did you get my email? If so, why haven't I received a response? If not, I will include the basic ideas expressed there in this posting.... >History, not an excuse: > Locus did Dos Merge for us. They kept shipping us "pre release" > versions. The decision was made (for better or worse) to ship > the stuff and to upgrade users when the real thing became avaliable. And you did THE EXACT SAME THING with SV/286's DOSMERGE a year or so back. Remember that? And remember just how horrid of a mess THAT was? I do. We did a FULL beta write-up, FULL beta testing, and we weren't even on the "top of the list" when you began shipping the "real" beast! Hell, the beta could be induced to panic within five minutes of booting! Yes, I paid full price for my BETA copy as well. What you didn't tell your SV/286 MERGE customers is that their "DOS" session would run slower than a decent XT, and that loading MERGE would make the serial ports unusable at anything over 300 baud! Needless to say, this "solution" is completely, 100% USELESS for any real work. (Yes, we reported these things -- they didn't get fixed in the "real" release -- although the serial port problem was acknowleged as UNFIXABLE!). We also never received a link kit for the MERGE system -- something that was PROMISED to us (and we are entitled to -- we HAVE AN UPGRADE CONTRACT). Given your prior experience with DOS/MERGE for the '286, you have NO EXCUSE for doing what you did with the '386 DOSMERGE product. You *knew* from experience that Locus might do something as you have described.... > V/386 DosMerge 1.1 (The *real thing*, not a Pre Release) is in > final engineering (Monday it starts QA) As soon as I approve it, > it will go into production and out to our customers. > > It is based on Unix V/386 ver 3.0, and will be handled as an > upgrade package: > > Those with Upgrade contracts will have V/386 and DM > shipped to them automatically. > > Those w/o an upgrade contract must purchase the Unix upgrade > from V/386 2.2 to V/386 3.0; the DM upgrade is free. > > Contact your sales rep for details. THIS is horrible. First, you sell a beta at full price. THEN you want *MORE* money to make it work (you've decided to make it incompatible with what the people HAD TO USE IT WITH in your first release). To be ethical you should either: 1) Have told your beta customers that this was going to occur (they were going to be asked for yet more money to get a working version).... or 2) Ship the FULL UPDATE without ANY CHARGE (this means no $20 handling charge either) to ALL YOUR BETA SITES. If your decision to make this version work with V3.0 rather than V2.2 causes people to be "hosed", you should take responsibility for it. Period. Of course, if you had taken path #1 no one would have paid their good money for the beta copy -- and you'd have had a real problem. The second path costs your company real money -- but it's how ethical companies do things in the real world. > GHC/386 is avaliable now - call your sales rep and ask for it. > it will also be shipping standard with 3.0. But you've been claiming that it (as well as DOSMERGE) was FOR REAL now for SIX MONTHS, and that GHC/386 was INCLUDED! Give me a break! I'm glad we didn't try to order it -- we would have had to pay out even *more* money for yet another piece of vapor. In some circles, what you are doing would be considered fraud (advertising one thing, delivering another -- or delivering a product missing part of what was advertised as being INCLUDED, then requiring that an "upgrade contract" be purchased to get the REST OF WHAT YOU PROMISED IN THE FIRST PLACE.) > If *some* of you want to help with a "real" beta, send me mail. > This means being willing and able to provide in depth testing > on various hardware platforms and with different environments. > Timeframe is soon, duration < 2 weeks; quantity is *small*. I > want quality beta testers, not quantity. I know we all are tired > of Pre Releases and Betas and whathaveyou, so my requirements are > stiff: Microport had this from us. We SERIOUSLY evaluated the SV/286 DOSMERGE beta. We reported our bugs as well as our success -- in WRITING. We still get (and got) NO support. Why would I offer to do this again, ESPECIALLY when you want our good money to BETA TEST your product for you? MOST companies provide beta software either FREE or at a GREATLY reduced cost. Microport doesn't. I prefer to not dig in that can of worms again. Look. Your SV/386 may be a good product. We even had it loaded on a machine here. I found a few nasties in the installation (read: it doesn't work if you try to set the interleave), and GAVE UP. Your company's prior record on support issues convinced me to not waste my time or money calling your "support" line -- so we went to SCO Xenix. We're not sorry -- SCO really DOES ship what they say they will, and most of the time it's shipped on time -- even when their "on-time" is a projection of future availability. This, however, is not what I am upset about. We, at MCS, purchased your SV/*286* product over a year and a half ago. We STILL GOT A BETA. We have an upgrade contract. We've never received a THING that we didn't yell, piss, holler and scream about for weeks first. We've never been notified of ANY fixes. And the ##$#!@% serial ports DONT WORK -- A YEAR AND A HALF LATER. Quite simply, we were lied to. Bald-faced style. When we originally placed the order we were quite up-front with the sales people about our intended use (heavy communications and the like). We were told "no problems known at present". Uh huh. Well, I still have a panicy SV/286 package here. I've received ZERO support from your organization on this matter. Hell -- they wanted MY HARDWARE out there a few months back for some "tests" -- at MY EXPENSE! And we're not alone. Two customers and several friends have the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS. John -- there is NOTHING WRONG with my hardware. Xenix works (and is working) flawlessly on the EXACT SAME HARDWARE. I think it's time you REALLY did something about this, since you have taken it upon yourself to proclaim that you are the "No bullshit" person at Uport. Here's what we feel we have paid for, and what we expect: o A WORKING SV/286 RELEASE. That means no more panics from the serial driver, and NO MORE LOST CHARACTERS at reasonable loads. Darn it John, we have sent in the EXACT PANIC LOCATION several times to your organization. Do you mean you can't fix your OWN DRIVERS? No less than THREE TIMES have I been given a "fix" that should have stopped the blow ups. Not ONCE has it had ANY EFFECT AT ALL. While you are at it, fix the frigging 'fsck' problem that blows filesystems away larger than about 120kblocks (is this one fixed yet? No one ever told us if so.... nor have we been updated). If you cannot provide this, in a reasonable time-frame, I expect your firm to refund our money (and anyone else who asks). This software is USELESS to us in it's present form. Your company was advised of our use for said software, and made the statement that it WOULD WORK. It doesn't. You are STILL selling this piece of trash (God help those poor dupes who buy it). o An upgrade. Once. Without calling a few thousand times first. Either that, or refund the money you took from us for the "upgrade contract" since you have NEVER ONCE PROVIDED AN UPDATE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, even though said updates ARE AVAILABLE IF YOU BITCH REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT. Look. You've come on pretty strong here the last two weeks or so. I've read a LOT of blathering. I haven't received an answer to my email. Why is that? Did you really not receive it? It didn't bounce.... Or is it possible that there really will be *NO CHANGE* in the way your company conducts business. That you will continue to ship betas without telling people, then charge them AGAIN to upgrade to a version which works. That you will continue to misrepresent what your company KNOWS TO BE TRUE both on the phone and on the net. And that your support department will continue to tell people on the phone that their hardware must be responsible for all the crashes and other problems... John, we're tired of the bull. We're tired of having to tell customers that what they're buying from us is CRAP -- and that we *cannot* support it here due to vendor-induced bugs. We were partners in this business once upon a time.... But we've been taken advantage of and now we're PISSED OFF. At MCS we pride ourselves on our service and customer support. That's why we are still in business -- because we SUPPORT, 100%, ALL OF THE PRODUCTS WE SELL. PERIOD. (Ask our customers -- that's why they buy from us). We *EAT* our mistakes -- as do most ethical companies. Under your present set of conditions, we CANNOT PROVIDE this service if someone buys your software from us. This means we cannot sell your software -- because in our opinion your support services and policies are *UNACCEPTABLE* (ditto for your sales staff's level of product knowledge). We are an ethical company. We don't sell things that are known to be broken. We don't lie to people. And we get VERY pissed off when a vendor lies to us. Microport has done this more times than I have appendages. Will Microport respond? Will things ACTUALLY CHANGE with you there? Or will you simply spew your rhetoric onto the net, in the hopes that a few more suckers will ante up for disaster? If you want to "oil" this squeaky wheel, show us working software. That's all we ever wanted, and all we paid for. I believe we are entitled to either working software, or a full refund (including all the $20 shipping charges we've paid -- heck, you may as well have shipped bricks in the box!) I'll be looking for our *WORKING* SV/286 and SV/386 versions in our UPS deliveries. Why don't I really expect to find anything from your firm? We're waiting for the "great changes" to be shown to us, as part of the outside world. All we've seen so far is blathering on the net. It's your ball John. Put up or shut up -- please. Response(s) appreciated. Our lines, and email boxes, are open and waiting. -- Karl Denninger (ddsw1!karl) Data: (312) 566-8912, Voice: (312) 566-8910 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
learn@ddsw1.UUCP (William Vajk) (08/08/88)
In article <402@uport.UUCP>, plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: > I'm new here at Microport; meetings are one of the only ways I have of > "learning the ropes". Sorry if I can't always jump when the phone rings, > but if I'd spend all my time on the horn I couldn't get anything *else* done. Excuse me for saying so, nothing personal in this at all, but the last time I heard this sort of thing was from my new life insurance agent, who 'was gonna be around for a long time', and the time before that, by perhaps 6 months was from his predecessor, ad infinitum. Each was to set the world on fire by reviewing 'my plan' and making things better (read sell a hot new product and earn a commission, while dumping everything the guy before did.) I must have missed it, listening to new promises from uport can make people behave this way, but are you engineering, customer support, sales, partner, or what. If you are anything less than a responsible partner (means you have breathed new financial blood into the company) then your hands are tied by the two moneymen in the company, and everything you're here to say is simply to placate upset purchasers. If you're the person in charge of customer service, you would do real well to listen to what the customers are saying about your company and forget the meetings till you have something to offer instead of listening to all the stuff we, the customers, have heard for the past year plus. You're darn right you couldn't get anything else done, there are an awful lot of unhappy purchasers out here. Could so many people *all* be wrong ? We also recognize that all unhappy customers aren't on usenet, let alone vocal. The magnitude just kinda keeps growing......... If the product worked as promised, your job would be an easy one with only a few ropes to learn. As matters stand....... > Contact your sales rep for details. WHOSE sales rep ? Certainly not mine. Since you are _new_ to uport let me tell you what the sales rep told me when I first called to purchase 286/V. I asked "is there any '286 machine which cannot run your product?" The response was "if you find one, please let us know because we have been unable to find any machines on which Microport unix will not run." If uport wishes to behave as a corporate Robinson, I suppose you could pick apart the meaning of the word 'run.' In October or so of last year, I purchased an upgrade, and the serial drivers were still not fixed. When I phoned to complain, the first question was "do you have a support contract ?" An ethical business sells support contracts to provide user support, not to spend time on the phone trying to convince the customer that it is a hardware problem. See above about 'cannot find hardawre uport will not run on.' It was determined that MY driver problems must have to do with hardware. Uport completely ignored the fact that I was not alone with driver problems, that in fact everyone using serial drivers for call in lines had the same problem, and we all still do. There must be something quite special about your in house machine. Dwight Leu told me on several occasions just how well it runs. I've offered to go beg, borrow, or steal whatever definable configuration of hardware would run my software correctly, without sio driver problems. To date, I have not received any reply to this question. I can assume only that there is no hardware on which microport 286 will run as it is supposed to, that is, with minimal system loading uport software will ALWAYS cause lost characters. I beg you to prove me wrong. Send me the hardware for beta test here. I'll return it with written verdict on usenet. Using someone's smart sio card and THEIR software drivers does NOT count. We're talking about standard 286 hardware and microport software with only two (2) sio ports, and a printer port. One of my beefs with uport, and I've stated this time and again in this newsgroup, is that support is never supposed to mean paying a publisher to cover their tracks for screwups. Support is supposed to mean helping a customer lacking information or experience to use the product. I've never once requested _support_ from your firm. For many months I have asked uport to fix the product. To microport's credit, they did send me a driver fix. To microport's discredit, the drivers don't work much better than the old ones. Yes, the problems with double panics have been reduced. Now the system still loses characters like mad, but won't panic and shut down as easily. Again, we're not talking about a heavily loaded mode of operation. Lost characters seem to be the best known microport feature. Care to address how this affects the thruput of long uucp transactions and the attendant costs ? > "Beta" does NOT mean "production" or "placate an upset customer" > or "get a free upgrade"; now that I'm here, Beta means BETA, and > not early shipping. Just why is it that uport feels they can continue to ignore old problems while developing new products, apparently also quite buggy. You really should consider the present version of your '286 product to still be BETA. Is it perhaps early shipping ? A closing thought or few. If uport were an automobile manufacturer, they'd have been in bankruptcy a long time ago because of recalls to which the automotive industry is subject. It is the sort of thing that uport is doing that might well establish textbook cases for fraud in software publishing, and attendant personal liability for corporate officers in this industry. Bill (fix the product) Vajk learn@igloo
bowles@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Jeff Bowles) (08/09/88)
In article <352@marob.MASA.COM> samperi@marob.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: > >Software testing and bug fixing is undoubtedly your major technical activity >(as it is for all large software systems), so your beta testers are >essentially doing a large portion of your work for you, for free, and I >think you owe them more respect than you have given them in the past. > W-e-l-l, I just called Locus to ask about the "Merge '386 Advanced User's Manual" which supposedly contains all sorts of information about how to set the package up in non-standard environments, like weird printer combinations and the like. First, that manual (to which there are zillions of forward pointers from the "User's Manual") doesn't exist. Second, they claim that WHAT THEY SHIPPED TO CUSTOMERS IS NOT *BETA*. That Microport insists that it is, well, is Microport's problem. Like, there's a major war getting ready to be fought, and I have a bad feeling that we (the customers) will lose. Jeff Bowles
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (08/09/88)
There is little I can add to what Karl Denninger said in his follow up other that "I'm glad he said it 'cause I was afraid to...". Karl is 100% right. I have had the same experience and have squalled about it in this group for months (before John Plocher decided to be John Wayne). In my personal (not legal) opinion and from my personal experience, Microport is a collection of scoundrels that promise anything to get your money and then stand back and laugh at you for being stupid enough to give it to them. That is certainly my experience. John Plocher has asked for some "room" for him to make good on some pretty tall claims. He doesn't want to be on the phone all day (don't blame him) but why can't he answer email? Why not get one of the rookies off of the phone banks and let the rookie answer email. John's "learning the ropes", if he really wants to reverse the momentum of that company he'd best watch out or someone will find something to do with the rope... Let's do give John some "room" to maneuver, but let's see *ONE* claim/promise fulfilled. Not all of them (that hole is too deep, not enough room), JUST ONE. Then will the recipient post the favorable result so we can all figure out where we are in line? Then let's give him "room" and more as each claim/promise is fulfilled. That seems fairer to John than his employer and predecessor have been to thousands of us... -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,rutgers,sun!daver,uunet!bigtex}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
bhj@bhjat.UUCP (Burt Janz) (08/09/88)
Fer crying out loud, folks!.... Is there NOTHING about Microport UNIX you like? If not, forget about the product, stay with XENIX, and get out of this group. It's time for constructive commentary, helps, kinks, and workarounds here in comp.unix.microport. Personally, I'd like to see this group move in a positive direction. The UPORT vs BT wars seem to be over (thank guru!), and now we are seeing a spate of "my beta is better than your beta". More on this later... But first, I have to stick my foot in the door... John Plocher has done an admirable job of trying to address the concerns of those who have posted questions about the state of both SV/AT and V/386. He is still relatively new at the job, and hasn't become too jaded yet :-) However, with SCREAMING!!!!! of the kind that I've recently read, it's no surprise if he loses his temper. I have had cause to speak with John (and, unlike others, I call back if he's in a meeting - the 800 number is free, after all), and have found him willing to bend backwards to try to help me with some of my wierd requests. Meanwhile, there are things he is NOT in a position to do. He is not, after all, the CEO. In my opinion (if, after the previous paragraph my opinion is still worthy), anyone who is told that the software they are contemplating purchasing is a "beta" and STILL agrees to purchase it, must NOT expect that product to work fully up to snuff. I had SV/AT 1.36 which was buggy as all get out. I got the first DosMerge at 2.1 (I think?) and it had the 1.36 kernel (I'm sure!). I was told that it was a beta release when I asked the salesman on the phone... you see, I ask about these things. I NEVER believe any ads. Including Microport's. DosMerge Pre-release Beta was a disappointment, but I didn't RAISE THE ROOF because I knew it was beta... and I still agreed to purchase it. It was slow, buggy, crashed often, had problems running many DOS tasks and wouldn't run others, and didn't understand my mouse. But, I didn't bitch back about "selling product unsuitable for market". It was, after all, beta. (Please note the use of the word "beta". See how often it appears?) I am currently running on the S/386 V3.0 (or is it 2.2 Pre-release, John?) beta. It is buggy, has problems, is a little slow, the serial ports are still screwed up, the tape driver still hangs occasionally... I could go on. I won't. It's a beta, and you have to expect these things. I am hoping that many of the problems I and others have found will be fixed in the full release. I don't EXPECT this. Anyone who develops software for a living knows that bugs may come in AFTER the full release of the product, and you can't deliver custom kernels for every joe shmo who calls in and complains. Unless, of course, they're willing to pay premium prices for support (manpower ain't cheap!) In general, Microport UNIX has improved greatly since I first started with it. Even the beta S/386 improves over the previous release. I don't have the two drive problem, and never have. I did have problems installing a second drive, but that was MY fault. I didn't read the directions! I called in, and was told how to do it properly, and it worked. (Oh, yes.. I called the support line and was connected in a short time to a techie..) (Private for John Plocher - Couldja put some music on hold? Classical would be nice... or maybe jazz...) --- small flame goes on now... --- I don't have DosMerge for the 386. I have a 286 running PC-DOS instead... And I don't have any problems running my DOS applications. Be nice. I did this on purpose... I want my UNIX processor doing UNIX things, and my DOS processor doing DOS things. Context switching is very expensive, and running a DOS application under UNIX doesn't make sense, when people like WordPerfect are porting to UNIX anyway! (OS/2 is a marketing failure, and IBM knows it.. and so does Microsoft. Anyone notice that MS WORD is being ported to UNIX? Echoes of things to come?...) For those who use DosMerge: By the way, how did you intend to handle your multiple users on their serial ports? Are they going to be able to run graphics programs on VT-100 terminals? I didn't know they could speak CGA/EGA/MGA/HGA commands! --- small flame extinguishes itself due to lack of fuel :-) --- Summary: If you want to use XENIX, subscribe to comp.unix.xenix. If you want to use Microport, subscribe to comp.unix.microport. If Microport bugs bother you, get a source licence and fix them yourself. If you want perfect unix, write the kernel and utilities yourself. If you feel that XENIX/Microport was a mistake, go ahead and kick yourself, but don't do it here! If you feel all the world's a VAX, go buy one. You won't have to worry about either XENIX or Microport then... ULTRIX is worse than either (I work with it daily... internally at DEC!) Please stop comparing XENIX and Microport. Be happy with one or the other. Live in peace. Burt Janz ..decvax!bhjat!bhj
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (08/09/88)
In article <11171@lll-winken.llnl.gov> bowles@lll-crg.llnl.gov.UUCP (Jeff Bowles) writes: >W-e-l-l, I just called Locus ... > >... they claim that WHAT THEY SHIPPED TO CUSTOMERS IS NOT *BETA*. >That Microport insists that it is, well, is Microport's problem. > Did they bother to explain, then, why it's not working as advertised? Seems to me there's a lot of ambiguity about what is and what is not BETA. Maybe what Locus ships to customers is *ALPHA* ? That would explain the (lack of) performance. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp%dcs@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (08/10/88)
In article <1519@ddsw1.UUCP>, learn@ddsw1.UUCP (William Vajk) writes: > > In October or so of last year, I purchased an upgrade, and the serial > drivers were still not fixed. When I phoned to complain, the first > question was "do you have a support contract ?" Well I really have to believe that the serial port problems with Uport 286 must be dependant on various hardware combinations, and here is why I say this. When Uport released the 1.3.6 version of V/AT I purchased it and installed it on a 130meg Compaq Deskpro-386, and in this configuration I added a Digicom/8 (eight port dumb card). This was hooked up as a four user system, and running all the terminals plus one Hayes 2400 modem I NEVER experienced the serial problems that many on the net talk about (and yes it has been run under load). Over time the machine has been upgraded to the 2.2 V/AT release, and still NO PROBLEMS have occoured. So am I just LUCKY, or dosen't the Deskpro/386 have the problems the rest of you experience. Also as a side note, I ran an AT (286) clone that was sporting the CHIPS set and a standard AT serial/parallel card from an original IBM AT, this machine also exibited NO SERIAL problem under the 2.2 release of Uport, but the machine was only in service for a month since it was replaced with a 386 system and Uport V/386 which runs even better. > One of my beefs with uport, and I've stated this time and again in this > newsgroup, is that support is never supposed to mean paying a publisher > to cover their tracks for screwups. Support is supposed to mean helping > a customer lacking information or experience to use the product. I've > never once requested _support_ from your firm. For many months I have > asked uport to fix the product. Well I will agreee with you on the statement made above, and Uport should NOT charge anybody the cost os a support contract when all they want are bugs reported/fixed in the original release that was shipped to them. For this reason I too have only purchased the UPDATE service, since due to my years of UNIX experience I really don't require hand holding... > A closing thought or few. > > If uport were an automobile manufacturer, they'd have been in bankruptcy > a long time ago because of recalls to which the automotive industry > is subject. It is the sort of thing that uport is doing that might well > establish textbook cases for fraud in software publishing, and attendant > personal liability for corporate officers in this industry. > > Bill (fix the product) Vajk learn@igloo OK Bill, I can see where a lot of people have been upset with Uport, and at times I have been iritated with them myself, but let's give John a chance to work on improving!! I have talked to John Ploucher several times over the past couple weeks, and I really believe he is making a sincere effort to help the masses, but that takes time. If you were put in his position and really wanted to make a difference, could you do it over night ?? I doubt it, and for that reason I am willing to sit back and give John some breating room, and then maby after some time if the horrible problems exist (not that I really have many problems with Uport) then you can get fired up at John. From what I have seen and heard from John in the past several weeks, I am impressed with his effort, and if more people will give him a chance to help I believe you will also be impressed.. [Flames to /dev/null] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : WB3FFV @ W3ITM | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171
keith@uport.UUCP (Keith Hankin) (08/10/88)
In article <11171@lll-winken.llnl.gov> bowles@lll-crg.llnl.gov.UUCP (Jeff Bowles) writes: > >W-e-l-l, I just called Locus to ask about the "Merge '386 Advanced >User's Manual" which supposedly contains all sorts of information about >how to set the package up in non-standard environments, like weird >printer combinations and the like. > >First, that manual (to which there are zillions of forward pointers >from the "User's Manual") doesn't exist. > Locus never delivered an Advanced User's Manual for Merge to us (Microport). In the mean time, they had sprinkled many references to this non-existent manual in the documentation. We are now working on our own version of the manual which will eliminate all such references and, where applicable, will add important information in place of the extra "manual". >Second, they claim that WHAT THEY SHIPPED TO CUSTOMERS IS NOT *BETA*. >That Microport insists that it is, well, is Microport's problem. > The product that Locus has been shipping to customers has been the same product that Microport has been shipping. The difference is that we at Microport decided that there were too many problems to call it a final release and decided to ship it as a pre-release beta product. Locus has been shipping the same product and calling it a complete release. > Jeff Bowles -- Keith Hankin keith@uport Microport Systems
learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) (08/11/88)
In article <11171@lll-winken.llnl.gov> Jeff Bowles writes: > Like, there's a major war getting ready to be fought, and I have a > bad feeling that we (the customers) will lose. Like old game = new game ? Is anyone really surprised ? Do I sound surprised ? Do I look surprised ? Bill Vajk (I'm not surprised) learn@igloo
fred@cdin-1.UUCP (08/11/88)
With all the chit-chat...with all the problems... How can anybody still consider the product and base their business decisions on things that can't be supported? It is beyond me how so many 'experts' can continue struggling with software that has price as its only benefit. Can anybody explain to me why? -- *************************** * This is a witty line. * * Please disregard it. * ***************************
samperi@djs.UUCP (08/11/88)
In article <211@bhjat.UUCP> bhj@bhjat.UUCP (Burt Janz) writes: |Is there NOTHING about Microport UNIX you like? If not, forget about the |product, stay with XENIX, and get out of this group. Stay with XENIX? Most of the Microport flamage that you have been reading has come from Microport customers who are upset by the fact that they do no get a reasonable amount of technical feedback on bug reports, etc. At a bare minimum, when a customer (often synonymous with beta tester) goes through the trouble of filling out one of those "Software Problem Report" forms, he/she should receive a written report from Microport describing what is being done about the problem, when it will be fixed, etc. And serious problems like compiler bugs that regularly panic the system should be fixed IMMEDIATELY (I've reported such a bug that was verified by Microport almost two years ago). |John Plocher has done an admirable job of trying to address the concerns of I agree, John has tried to be frank and honest with his customers... -- Dominick Samperi samperi@acf8.nyu.edu uunet!hombre!samperi cmcl2!acf8!samperi rutgers!acf8.nyu.edu!samperi (^ ell)
tanner@ki4pv.UUCP (08/11/88)
In article <7337@cdin-1.uucp>, fred@cdin-1.uucp (Fred Rump) writes:
) It is beyond me how so many 'experts' can continue struggling with
) software that has price as its only benefit.
It's the same principle that sells lousy hardware. Some folks look
at nothing but the price up front. Ultimately, it can cost a company
heaps of time and money trying to nurse the product along and get
some work out of it, but it's hard to explain that to the executive
types.
(I remember a company which found the bottom-of-the line CP/M system
back in its day, called a "Superbrain", and bought several. You would
not believe the money they spent trying to keep those things running,
and trying to get useful work out of them \(em while the boss proclaimed
how much money he saved.
The producer of this dubious system changed their name yet again,
so that their later product (IBM clones) wouldn't bear the same not-
so-well regarded name as the "drains". Perhaps these clones are being
bought by the same folks who buy \(*uPort.)
--
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or... {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner
samperi@djs.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) (08/11/88)
In article <723@wb3ffv.UUCP> howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes: |I have been iritated with them myself, but let's give John a chance to I don't think the flames have been directed at John Plocher, but rather at the longstanding policy at Microport of not providing adequate technical feedback and timely bug fixes. John only made some frank and open comments that confirmed the suspicions of a few Microport customers, thus triggering the flames. -- Dominick Samperi samperi@acf8.nyu.edu uunet!hombre!samperi cmcl2!acf8!samperi rutgers!acf8.nyu.edu!samperi (^ ell)
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (08/12/88)
In article <1519@ddsw1.UUCP>, learn@ddsw1.UUCP (William Vajk) writes: % One of my beefs with uport, and I've stated this time and again in this % newsgroup, is that support is never supposed to mean paying a publisher % to cover their tracks for screwups. Support is supposed to mean helping % a customer lacking information or experience to use the product. I've % never once requested _support_ from your firm. For many months I have % asked uport to fix the product. In article <723@wb3ffv.UUCP>, howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) replies: > Well I will agreee with you on the statement made above, and Uport should NOT > charge anybody the cost os a support contract when all they want are bugs > reported/fixed in the original release that was shipped to them. For this > reason I too have only purchased the UPDATE service, since due to my years > of UNIX experience I really don't require hand holding... That would depend on whether the bugs are Microport's, or AT&Ts. Also, you have to remember the price Microport is charging for this stuff - I bought my system in Dec. 86, and it cost (I think) $550. I looked at two other systems at the same time. I could have bought SCO Xenix, for $1200 for roughly the same system. Higher cost, a little bit better support, but not enough to make it worthwhile. I also could have bought Sperry's (now Unisys') Xenix for $2500. Why so much? The Sperry product comes with the kind of support you would expect from such a company, and it costs a lot of money. My brother works in the Unix Support Group at Unisys. They have some major customers, and he and several other support people worked most of last weekend on fixing a "drop-dead" problem for a large customer. Do you know how much it costs to have 4 or 5 software/engineering types work a weekend? That's why the OS costs so much more - the support is included! -- {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes "Happiness lies in being priviledged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." -- Robert A. Heinlein --
learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) (08/14/88)
In article <723@wb3ffv.UUCP>, howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes: > I have talked to John Ploucher several times over the > past couple weeks, and I really believe he is making a sincere effort to help > the masses, but that takes time. If you were put in his position and really > wanted to make a difference, could you do it over night ?? Given the history of the company at this point, would it be unreasonable to request a list of intended corrections and some timeframe for corrections ? If microport is turning a new leaf, this request should present no problems assuming they already have such a projection made internally for their own purposes. I have been patient for long periods, and can easily remain so provided there is something to be patient for. Bill (fix the product) Vajk learn@igloo
doug@feedme.UUCP (Doug Salot) (08/15/88)
In article <150@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: [about paying for support, e.g. Unisys Xenix] > Do >you know how much it costs to have 4 or 5 software/engineering types >work a weekend? There are companies that pay engineers for overtime?! Unisys, here I come. -- Doug Salot || doug@feedme.UUCP || ...{trwrb,hplabs}!felix!dhw68k!feedme!doug "Thinking: The Thinking Man's Sport"
bowles@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Jeff Bowles) (08/16/88)
In article <115@feedme.UUCP> doug@feedme.UUCP (Doug Salot) writes: >In article <150@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: >[about paying for support, e.g. Unisys Xenix] >> Do >>you know how much it costs to have 4 or 5 software/engineering types >>work a weekend? > >There are companies that pay engineers for overtime?! Unisys, here >I come. For software support, you can't really mold customer needs into a strict 9-to-5 environment, and MUST be able to provide the service to customers. The juggling act is that the basic demands during the business day remain, and that there's little time to recover from staying 'til 10 PM one night helping someone recover files using fsdb because he/she forgot to verify a backup. In many other positions, you get that recovery time. So many places pay overtime for software support. It was one of the hits when I left support --- I moved to an area with a higher cost of living, no salary adjustment, and stopped getting overtime. It really hit my lifestyle hard. And if I ever get my hands on the manager responsible for the middle one (no salary adjustment to compensate for higher cost of living) it'll be messy. Jeff Bowles
jsp@sp7040.UUCP (John Peters) (08/17/88)
In article <115@feedme.UUCP>, doug@feedme.UUCP (Doug Salot) writes: > In article <150@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > [about paying for support, e.g. Unisys Xenix] > > Do > >you know how much it costs to have 4 or 5 software/engineering types > >work a weekend? > > There are companies that pay engineers for overtime?! Unisys, here > I come. Being the overtimee I can definitely say that they do not pay overtime. However, just what does to cost in equipment and various other resources around the lab. And besides I HHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEEEE working weekends. -- Johnnie --