howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (06/17/88)
In article <4935@dasys1.UUCP>, manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) writes: > > I've had a lousy time trying to find a smart serial board for my 386. Well I know where you are comming from, I have been playing this game for almost a year now, and about a week ago I got the solution I was looking for. > I'm currently running a Digiboard COM/8 ("dumb") serial board but want to > upgrade to an intelligent controller for the Trailblazer. The Digiboard > works with the T-bit, just not as smoothly as I would like. Yep, I have used quite a few Digiboard COM/8 cards, and for what they are they work very well.. > The first board tried was Bell's ICC's, which is a complete disaster. If the > modems aren't hung inside of 4 hours, the machine has crashed completely. [Flame On!!] Well let me say that I can tell you some stories about Bell Technoliges, and I wouldn't put it all here (it would overload the net!!). The Bell ICC is a peice of JUNK! It dosen't work with System V/AT, it works even worse with System V/386 from Microport, and even with there own port of UNIX V 3.0 for the 80386 (sold by Bell Tech) it won't handle a modem, so the board is useless in my opinion. So I sent a whole pile of ICC's back to Bell and to date have never received a refund (almost two months ago). I also own one of Bell's 60meg tape backups, which I had to send back for repair, which has never been returned!! After many many calls to Bell (it took almost three weeks for them to return my call), when somebody called me back from technical support they told me they had no idea of where my tape backup was, and that I would just have to wait untill they got if repaired and shipped it back to me. Well from all of this I can say I will be looking for another supplier of Tape Backups, anybody have any good suggestions. [Flame Off] > The second was the Arnet. This one appears to work fine... until you try > to run one of a few programs (one of which is Magpie, which I wrote, so I > know there's nothing tricky going on). Xenix dumps with a panic if > 'aspserv' (v 5.0) is loaded and then Magpie is run. The error indicates > possible kernel and/or RAM corruption. We encountered similar problems > with the Arnet and the 286 if the bus is pushed to 10 Mhz. Well I have no experience with the Arnet board, it didn't seem to have near the intelegence of several other products, so I didn't try it. The good news is that I have found a SMART SERIAL BOARD that actually works with MODEMS and TERMINALS. The board is the Smart Hostess from Comtrol, and when I bought the board it had several bugs that needed to be taken care of, so they put me in contact with the engineer that wrote the drivers for the card. Both myself and Lori worked on and tested the board for several weeks, and at this point I can say the card performs almost flawless. I am not sure if the drivers we have been working on have made it in to the production line yet, but if you are interested in getting one of the cards please give me a call and I will help make sure you get the latest drivers. (this was such good news that I had to go get a drink :-) > I suspect that the bus speed is the problem. Does anyone know of a GOOD > smart serial board, with hardware flow control, capable of keeping up with > a 10 Mhz bus? Well the 10mhz speed could cause some problems, especially since the Bell board uses the bus clock signals to drive the card. The Smart Hostess that I mentioned above generates it's own clock. so it dosen't care about the bus clock speed, which is the way it should be.. Well that is about it, and I hope the information is useful to some of you on the net, and I would avoid the Bell Technoliges ICC !! P.S. - Steve, I am waiting to hear from you on your BBS software (looks good). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : wb3ffv@w3itm-9 | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171
mike@cimcor.UUCP (Michael Grenier) (06/19/88)
From article <628@wb3ffv.UUCP>, by howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ): > > In article <4935@dasys1.UUCP>, manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) writes: >> >> I've had a lousy time trying to find a smart serial board for my 386. > >> The first board tried was Bell's ICC's, which is a complete disaster. If the >> modems aren't hung inside of 4 hours, the machine has crashed completely. > > [Flame On!!] > Well let me say that I can tell you some stories about Bell Technoliges, and > I wouldn't put it all here (it would overload the net!!). The Bell ICC is a > peice of JUNK! It dosen't work with System V/AT, it works even worse with > System V/386 from Microport, and even with there own port of UNIX V 3.0 for > the 80386 (sold by Bell Tech) it won't handle a modem, so the board is > useless in my opinion. So I sent a whole pile of ICC's back to Bell and to For whatever its worth, I've used the Bell board in both Microport 286 and 386 UNIX as well as the Digiboard. I had the same problems with the modem as you did but there was a fix posted to the net awhile back for this problem. It seems that the wiring diagrams in their manual are screwed up and the suggested wiring for the modem was wrong. (Not to mention that they use the wrong sex RS-232 connectors off their cables considering the Bell board works as a DCE). Some of the modem lines are wired wrong. Unfortunately, I didn't keep that article so I don;t remember what the correct wiring should be...check the other areas of the manual dor the 8 pin layout coming off the board and wire it up using common sense. One thing I liked about the Bell board was its use under 386 DosMerge. It handled terminals very nicely especially once you do a 'on unix "stty ixon /dev/tty01"' or whatever from the DOS prompt which sets handling of XON/XOFF for terminals like mine which need it (it gets reset by DosMerge). Personally, I'd buy something other than a Bell Technologies board. -Mike Grenier mike@cimcor.mn.org {rutgers, amdahl, ihnp4???}!bungia!cimcor!mike
jack@turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel) (06/22/88)
In article <510@cimcor.UUCP> mike@cimcor.UUCP (Michael Grenier) writes: >From article <628@wb3ffv.UUCP>, by howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ): >> [...misc. flames omitted...] > >For whatever its worth, I've used the Bell board in both Microport 286 >and 386 UNIX as well as the Digiboard. I had the same problems with the >modem as you did but there was a fix posted to the net awhile back for >this problem. It seems that the wiring diagrams in their manual are screwed >up and the suggested wiring for the modem was wrong. (Not to mention that >they use the wrong sex RS-232 connectors off their cables considering ??^^^^^^^^^?? >the Bell board works as a DCE). Some of the modem lines are wired wrong. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I have been watching the Bell ICC reports with much interest since we are using one on turnkey. I think that much of the flames are deserved and I will add a couple of my own, but this talk of not working with a modem is not true. I had 2 Multitechs running on the card and they worked fine ( that is as well as the card worked overall ). This talk of the wrong sex connector makes no sense. You must realize that Bell sells a number of different RJ45-DB25 style adapters. When we took delivery on the card it had only one such adapter, and it was for terminals, which means it is effectively a NULL MODEM. Now if someone tried to use this with a modem it certainly would not work!!! It was not the wrong "sex" however, it was male. What we did was make our own modem adapters so that the signals would be "straight through", and it worked fine as I said. The previous posters might give the mistaken impression that the ICC does not support the necessary signals to control a modem (such as at least some cards from, say, Arnet). This is false, it supports the standard 8 lines and provides for real hardware flow control. One must just make sure that the proper adapter is installed. Now on to the flames...the card has been causing us considerable grief. It has been run in two different systems. In the first it would cause huge memory fault core dumps under considerable system load. In the present system it doesn't core dump, instead it causes general protection panics and brings the system down altogether, wonderful :-} :-{. At this point we have it out of the system. Now a bit of good news comes from Paul Vixie who says there is a new release that has solved the problems. I have corresponded with him and he says it has shipped since 2/88. Now the question is will Bell make good and allow those of us who bought the earlier lemon exchange for a product that works?? Are you listening Bell????? >Personally, I'd buy something other than a Bell Technologies board. At this point I would agree with this conclusion, unless Bell can prove themselves with their new release. And I might add, they should do so in a hurry if they are to stem the proverbial tide of this bad press. -- Jack F. Vogel Turnkey Computer Consultants, Costa Mesa, CA UUCP: ...{nosc|uunet}!turnkey!jack Internet: jack@turnkey.TCC.COM
howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (06/22/88)
Hello Netters, After a call to Bell Technoligies today I was informed that I am now incorrect in my statement that there card uses the bus signals for timing. They now have an onboard crystal oscilator that generates the clock pulses, which will be a nice improvment. I cannot say if the new style ICC works any better than the older product that I own, since I don't have one here to test. If at some point I ever get my hands on a new revision board I will report the results to every- one here on the net... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : wb3ffv@w3itm-9 | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171
jim@belltec.UUCP (Mr. Jim's Own Logon) (06/22/88)
A lot of complaints about Bell Tech all of a sudden. I'm sorry that you don't like the serial card. You are in the minority. It is still the best selling smart card in Europe, and one of the best in the US. We have a full time tech support staff to handle problems with any of our hardware or software products, and they would soon be aware of any prevelant problems with the board or the driver software. Most problems are with the users not reading the manual, or not understanding what they want to do. Those that are technically knowledgable often blaim the added feature, which is the serial card. In Microport 386, when you add a smart card and it doesn't work properly, is it the card, the driver, or the OS? I realize that you will take all of this with a grain of salt since I'm from Bell Tech (I did the ICC hardware), but I wanted to present our side. There are a lot of satisfied Bell Tech customers using everything from samrt cards to high resolution graphics; and many of these people are on the net. Like any company or any product there are those that will leap out to flame them for whatever reason (I could go through our tech support data base and find out the history of the complainers here, but I don't think a mud slinging contest will help any). Anyway, our ICC smart cards as well as the new ACE smart cards work fine with terminals, modems, printers and all other serial devices. Large companies that have evaluated our smart cards against the top 5 or so other smart card companies have all signed OEM deals with us. And this is after a 2 month testing and evaluation period. If they had the type of problems that you claim, we wouldn't be selling them 1000 a month. Sorry for the length of this, but it IS a good design. -Jim Wall Bell Technologies Inc.
john@jetson.UUCP (John Owens) (06/23/88)
In article <218@turnkey.TCC.COM>, jack@turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel) writes: > as well as the card worked overall ). This talk of the wrong sex connector > makes no sense. . . . > it was for terminals, which means it is effectively > a NULL MODEM. Now if someone tried to use this with a modem it certainly > would not work!!! It was not the wrong "sex" however, it was male. OK, you had a connector to which you could directly connect a terminal with a straight-through cable, which is equivalent to a "normal" COM port (male DTE) plus a null modem. What's "wrong" is that this makes the port DCE, which should have a female connector. (To put this another way, when flipping the pins (DCE vs DTE), you should also change the sex of the connector.) > What we > did was make our own modem adapters so that the signals would be "straight > through", and it worked fine as I said. Sure; you changed it back to DTE. But what you ended up with was a null modem cable with opposite sex ends. -- John Owens SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership john@jetson.UUCP (old uucp) uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 (internet) john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net
bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/24/88)
In article <235@belltec.UUCP> jim@belltec.UUCP (Mr. Jim's Own Logon) writes: > > A lot of complaints about Bell Tech all of a sudden. I'm sorry that you >don't like the serial card. You are in the minority. It is still the best >selling smart card in Europe, and one of the best in the US. We have a full >time tech support staff to handle problems with any of our hardware or I'm deleting the rest because it isn't pertinent to what I want to wail about. Ahah! Gotcha! A real live breathing, speaking person from Bell Tech. I'm not raw about the board, but I am about Bell Tech and I speak for no fewwer than four others in the same boat. I'll have to defer to your opinion about your boards, drivers, and other software because I have been unable to get one stitch of information out of your firm about any of the above. The "others" I refer to have the same problem, one of them wants to buy a 20MHz 80386 full up system and he can't get a sales rep to return his call, or even get info mailed. From the tone of Jim's article he's over in engineering or tech support some place but I'm as mad at Bell Tech as the people with technical problems. I called, *eight* times. The last two I pleaded with their switchboard, "I have money, CASH that I want to spend, PLEASE may I speak with a sales rep and if not then at least an order taker" Nope, the sphynx impression was perfect. I chimed in because Jim said he is Bell Tech and because he made a point of the good tech support. Many of the complaints I have seen are about the non-responsive nature of tech support. I'm just expanding that to include the whole company. Jim, of course is exempt because he posted to the net and gave me a chance to drop a little napalm :-) :-) Let the record show, I'd have two ICC's rather than a competitor, a friend of mine ditto, a mail neighbor would have a Bell Tech 20MHz system if they'd just answer phone calls, return them when they couldn't, or even drop an order form in the mail. Maybe business is so good they don't mind the lost sales, but I noticed and so did several others. >after a 2 month testing and evaluation period. If they had the type of >problems that you claim, we wouldn't be selling them 1000 a month. If you didn't have the type of problem I claim, maybe you would be selling 2000 a month. -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill
howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (06/24/88)
In article <510@cimcor.UUCP>, mike@cimcor.UUCP (Michael Grenier) writes: > > For whatever its worth, I've used the Bell board in both Microport 286 > and 386 UNIX as well as the Digiboard. I had the same problems with the > modem as you did but there was a fix posted to the net awhile back for > this problem. It seems that the wiring diagrams in their manual are screwed > up and the suggested wiring for the modem was wrong. (Not to mention that > they use the wrong sex RS-232 connectors off their cables considering > the Bell board works as a DCE). Some of the modem lines are wired wrong. > Unfortunately, I didn't keep that article so I don;t remember what the > correct wiring should be...check the other areas of the manual dor the > 8 pin layout coming off the board and wire it up using common sense. Well I am very aware of the boards being wired for terminals, infact what I did was to buy some RJ-45 --> DB-25 adapter kits and put them togeather for the modems. Actually with a 1200 or 2400 baud modem they would work most of the time, but with a Telebit Trailblazer Plus it was just a wasted effort, and you could depend on having to reset the ICC card after every incomming high speed connection. > One thing I liked about the Bell board was its use under 386 DosMerge. > It handled terminals very nicely especially once you do a > 'on unix "stty ixon /dev/tty01"' or whatever from the DOS prompt which > sets handling of XON/XOFF for terminals like mine which need it (it gets > reset by DosMerge). When you say it worked under DOS/Merge, do you maen that it worked with standard ASCII terminals, or do you maen it supports a DOS oriented terminal that generates scan codes ?? If you mean with an ASCII terminal, YES I believe it would work, and you need to setup IXON in your gettydefs. I personally haven't used the DOS/Merge product, as I really want to avoid getting attached to the Messy DOS software, and then get stuck with it's limitations.. > Personally, I'd buy something other than a Bell Technologies board. > > -Mike Grenier > mike@cimcor.mn.org > {rutgers, amdahl, ihnp4???}!bungia!cimcor!mike I really hate to say bad things about anybody's product, but I had several sets of there boards here for many many months, and still to date they haven't fixed the problems. Now I just don't see why they sell a product for UNIX, claim that it works perfect, when in reality everybody I know that has run one has problems. When I called Microport and ask them which vendors smart cards they recomended, and explained that I had a Bell ICC, they said "Oh, you have an ICC from Bell Technoliges, We don't recomend you use that board with our OS", so I suppose I should have called them before buying. I use to have only the higest reguards for Bell Technoliges, as there tape backups are of good quality, and I really hope they realize that they are killing there reputation by selling a faulty product to the masses. I really hope that they will get there act in gear (and I know they are listing, so let's hear from you Bell!!)... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : wb3ffv@w3itm-9 | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171
howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (06/26/88)
In article <218@turnkey.TCC.COM>, jack@turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel) writes: > > I have been watching the Bell ICC reports with much interest since we are > using one on turnkey. I think that much of the flames are deserved and I will > add a couple of my own, but this talk of not working with a modem is not > true. I had 2 Multitechs running on the card and they worked fine ( that is > as well as the card worked overall ). Well I don't know how the thing works with the Multitechs, but on a Telebit Trailblazer (which a good many netters have) the board would generally run OK with 1200 and 2400 connections (90% of the time), but if you had a connection that ran in PEP mode (9600 or 19200) FORGET IT!! When attempting to run in PEP mode upon termination of the connection the port would drop DTR and it would NEVER return. Everytime I talked to Bell about this problem I was told two things, first the problem may be the TB+ since it is a NON-STANDARD modem, and second I have been told that there card was to FAST for the UNIX kernel and it was getting ahead of everything (not quite sure I follow this one, so I won't even try and expand on it). So anyway my conclusion on the Bell ICC is that it is good on a modem as long as you DON'T EXCEED 2400 BAUD.. Also as I mentioned in my previous article, the Telebit Trailblazer Plus modems are now running without a flaw on the Smart Hostess board that I installed as a replacement for the faulty ICC. So if the TB+ works on a standard DUMB serial port, and also on another vendors Intelegent Board, then I can't point a finger at the TB+ modems... > This talk of the wrong sex connector > makes no sense. You must realize that Bell sells a number of different > RJ45-DB25 style adapters. When we took delivery on the card it had only > one such adapter, and it was for terminals, which means it is effectively > a NULL MODEM. Now if someone tried to use this with a modem it certainly > would not work!!! It was not the wrong "sex" however, it was male. What we > did was make our own modem adapters so that the signals would be "straight > through", and it worked fine as I said. The previous posters might give > the mistaken impression that the ICC does not support the necessary signals > to control a modem (such as at least some cards from, say, Arnet). This is > false, it supports the standard 8 lines and provides for real hardware > flow control. One must just make sure that the proper adapter is installed. No I never implied that it dosen't support MODEM signals, in fact I also had to make my own RJ-45 --> DB-25 connectors. Also before I ordered the card from Bell I checked to see that it would work with a modem... > Now on to the flames...the card has been causing us considerable grief. It > has been run in two different systems. In the first it would cause huge > memory fault core dumps under considerable system load. In the present > system it doesn't core dump, instead it causes general protection panics > and brings the system down altogether, wonderful :-} :-{. At this point > we have it out of the system. Now a bit of good news comes from Paul > Vixie who says there is a new release that has solved the problems. I have > corresponded with him and he says it has shipped since 2/88. Now the > question is will Bell make good and allow those of us who bought the > earlier lemon exchange for a product that works?? Are you listening > Bell????? That would be the correct way to handle the problem, but wonder if they will be willing to take the loss on the card. Also I wonder which version of UNIX/Xenix your are running, and also what version of there ICC driver. I was using there own Bell UNIX System V release 3.0, and the ICC driver was version 0.9 (which at the time was there latest!! > >Personally, I'd buy something other than a Bell Technologies board. > > At this point I would agree with this conclusion, unless Bell can prove > themselves with their new release. And I might add, they should do so in > a hurry if they are to stem the proverbial tide of this bad press. Well I suppose in worse case we will stop others from having to go through the same troubles we have experienced. I also really hope that Bell gets there act togeather and resolves the problems, but at this point (and after eight months of waiting) the possibility of that happening is looking bad.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : wb3ffv@w3itm-9 | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171
howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (06/26/88)
In article <235@belltec.UUCP>, jim@belltec.UUCP (Mr. Jim's Own Logon) writes: > > A lot of complaints about Bell Tech all of a sudden. I'm sorry that you > don't like the serial card. You are in the minority. It is still the best > selling smart card in Europe, and one of the best in the US. We have a full > time tech support staff to handle problems with any of our hardware or > software products, and they would soon be aware of any prevelant problems > with the board or the driver software. Most problems are with the users not > reading the manual, or not understanding what they want to do. Those that > are technically knowledgable often blaim the added feature, which is the > serial card. In Microport 386, when you add a smart card and it doesn't > work properly, is it the card, the driver, or the OS? Well Jim I don't really want to start a mud slinging contest here on the net as you mention later on in this message, but I do feel there is a problem, and so that it is all out in the open I will go into it in a little more detail here. I really hope you can shed some light on the subject, and I am more than willing to put a card back in my machine and give it a try if you would like to call me on the phone a make sure I have it installed correctly (Let me say that I have talked with several of your technical support people). Also as I mentioned in one of my previous postings, I have talked about Bell Technoliges with the highest reguards over the past several years, and it hurt me as well to have to flame the company I once supported by selling your products. As far as is it being a user problem, I think not, as I am a very experienced UNIX system installer, and on top of that I have spent several hours on the phone with your technical services department trying to work out all the problems. In fact I was so willing to let you people work out the problems with the card that I kept the boards for over eight months, since I knew how well your tape backups worked for several years. Well it took so long that I lost a $100,000 contract to faulty ICC cards, and believe me I am not real happy about the situation, and to this date the cards still don't work! Here are several things that I did in an attempt to resolve the problem with your ICC board. I switched from Microport V/386 to Bell V.3 UNIX, since eventually I called Bell and they said "We are no longer going to support Microport, since they don't have a very large share of the UNIX market, and for that reason we will not spend any more development time on the Microport Drivers". So to knock that brick wall down I bought a copy of your own UNIX release, and it came with the drivers installed, so I couldn't have botched that part of it. Also as mentioned above I went over every switch setting on that card with you Technical support people, so thay must have been right. So then I was told the problem was with the Telebit Trailblazer modems, and that you would be getting one in to run some tests on. Well I even went as far as to give you people a login to my on system so that you could run tests with the high-speed modems, but I don't believe you ever called. So honestly, have I been unfair in my critisims ?? I have never flamed a company on the NET before, so I don't consider myself a person that FLAMES just to get attention. Again I say, would you personally like to make your ICC work on my system ?? (Inquiring minds want to know :-) > I realize that you will take all of this with a grain of salt since I'm > from Bell Tech (I did the ICC hardware), but I wanted to present our side. > There are a lot of satisfied Bell Tech customers using everything from > samrt cards to high resolution graphics; and many of these people are on > the net. Like any company or any product there are those that will leap out > to flame them for whatever reason (I could go through our tech support data > base and find out the history of the complainers here, but I don't think > a mud slinging contest will help any). Actually I am very glad to see you respond, since I knew from Dianne in your sales department that you received the messages posted to the NET. I will say that I resent being refered to as a person that would flame a product for no reason at all, and I will gladly retract all statements that I have made to the NET if you can prove that the problems were all caused by my inability to install the product correctly... > Anyway, our ICC smart cards as well as the new ACE smart cards work fine > with terminals, modems, printers and all other serial devices. Large > companies that have evaluated our smart cards against the top 5 or so > other smart card companies have all signed OEM deals with us. And this is > after a 2 month testing and evaluation period. If they had the type of > problems that you claim, we wouldn't be selling them 1000 a month. > > Sorry for the length of this, but it IS a good design. > > -Jim Wall > Bell Technologies Inc. Well I sure hope the new ACE card works better than the original ICC, and as usual I wish you the best of luck with resolving the problems that you encounter, and any products that you introduce.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : wb3ffv@w3itm-9 | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171
jpp@slxsys.specialix.co.uk (John Pettitt) (07/01/88)
From article <235@belltec.UUCP>, by jim@belltec.UUCP (Mr. Jim's Own Logon): > A lot of complaints about Bell Tech all of a sudden. I'm sorry that you > don't like the serial card. You are in the minority. It is still the best > selling smart card in Europe, and one of the best in the US. We have a full ....... > after a 2 month testing and evaluation period. If they had the type of > problems that you claim, we wouldn't be selling them 1000 a month. > -Jim Wall > Bell Technologies Inc. *FLAME ON* Bull shit ! First you claim to be the best selling card in Europe then you say that sales are only 1000 a month - make up your mind please. Even if you are selling all of your 1000 in Europe you have a way to go yet! *FLAME OFF* John Pettitt Specialix International - The European Serial Card Company. (If anybody want's product hype - mail me and I will reply by mail so as not subject the rest of the net to it :-) -- John Pettitt, Specialix, Giggs Hill Rd, Thames Ditton, Surrey, U.K., KT7 0TR {backbone}!mcvax!ukc!pyrltd!slxsys!jpp jpp@slxsys.specialix.co.uk Tel: +44-1-398-9422 Fax: +44-1-398-7122 Telex: 918110 SPECIX G >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
pete@romed.UUCP (Pete Rourke) (07/02/88)
In article <655@wb3ffv.UUCP> howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes: >In article <235@belltec.UUCP>, jim@belltec.UUCP (Mr. Jim's Own Logon) writes: >> >> A lot of complaints about Bell Tech all of a sudden. I'm sorry that you >> don't like the serial card. You are in the minority. It is still the best > Well Jim I don't really want to start a mud slinging contest here on the net >as you mention later on in this message, but I do feel there is a problem, and .... >honestly, have I been unfair in my critisims ?? I have never flamed a company >on the NET before, so I don't consider myself a person that FLAMES just to >get attention. Again I say, would you personally like to make your ICC work >on my system ?? (Inquiring minds want to know :-) > >your sales department that you received the messages posted to the NET. I >will say that I resent being refered to as a person that would flame a >product for no reason at all, and I will gladly retract all statements >that I have made to the NET if you can prove that the problems were all >caused by my inability to install the product correctly... > I don't know that I would be so defensive about flaming or mud slinging. We, stopped selling Bell Tech equipment, after reading a published article being passed out at Uniforum 1987 in Washington, by the chief mud slinger, and flaming artist Dimitri. At that time, Dimitri had grandstanded for Microport Unix over Santa Cruz Xenix, denouncing the Xenix product. Then after realizing that his equipment did in fact function well with SCO Xenix, he switched back, and to my amazement, he was allowed at the Santa Cruz Developers Forum. Now we're off on Bell's the Greatest Unix? Seems like Bell's leader changes tunes faster than most folks change underclothes, and vacillates like a windshield wiper. In an article in the 386/ix mail group, it would look like Dimitri himself wrote all of the best parts of the Intel/Interactive/Bell drivers, and half of the UNIX itself. Of course I'm sure he's wearing asbestos clothing and chain mail to become impervious to criticism. Where does anyone at Bell get off being insulted by constructive argumentation? <<Climbing into asbestos suit>> Pete Rourke Tulsa OK
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (07/03/88)
Despite personal characturistics of Bell employees, you have to admit that SCO XENIX at the time that Bell came out with their Microport UNIX system was pretty scuzzy. As someone who has been involed in software ports to these systems, I can tell you that pre-2.1 (if I remember properly) were pretty hokey. XENIX has changed a lot (of course both XENIX and MICROPORT are still SYS V :-(. -Ron
dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) (07/06/88)
In article <300@romed.UUCP>, pete@romed.UUCP (Pete Rourke) writes: > In article <655@wb3ffv.UUCP> howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes: > >In article <235@belltec.UUCP>, jim@belltec.UUCP (Mr. Jim's Own Logon) writes: Pete - /* FLAME ON */ I wasn't aware that USENET was becoming such a forum for personal political attacks. A little heckling is part of the fun and personality of USENET, but when you misstate the facts to grind a personal political axe you simply lose credibility. I'm not sure why you decided to engage in character assasination with someone with whom you've had no personal correspondance, but I can't let your misstatements go unanswered. Let's look at what you said: /* FLAME OFF */ > I don't know that I would be so defensive about flaming or mud slinging. > We, stopped selling Bell Tech equipment, after reading a published article > being passed out at Uniforum 1987 in Washington, by the chief mud slinger, > and flaming artist Dimitri. At that time, Dimitri had grandstanded for > Microport Unix over Santa Cruz Xenix, denouncing the Xenix product. I gather you don't like the article Bob Glossman and I wrote for UNIX/WORLD! Some Facts: We helped Microport get started, we distributed the product, we loaned Chuck Hickey and company equipment, we appeared in his advertising, and we even gave it away free with disk drives. Without our support (and the support of companies like us) you wouldn't have a comp.unix.microport group to flame in. I wrote a comparison article for UNIX/WORLD magazine that compared IBM Xenix, SCO Xenix, and Microport because our company was the only one simultaneously distributing and supporting all three. The article was reviewed and approved by UNIX/WORLD's editorial board, and contained third party checks on performance figures done by Neal Nelson Associates. At the time it was written, the article was the straightest, most accurate description of the the three systems available from the only company supporting all three. At the time the article was written, SCO was suffering from dreadful tech support and too many releases (problems now cured) and the world was yearning for an alternative ... who wouldn't be excited about a non-proprietary alternative? The article, by the way, concluded that Microport was a great idea, albeit rough about the edges, and the "best buy" for System V purists whereas SCO continued to be the leading commercial release. Sure, we got excited about Microport. No, we didn't "denounce" Xenix. So what? > > Then after realizing that his equipment did in fact function well with > SCO Xenix, he switched back, and to my amazement, he was allowed at the > Santa Cruz Developers Forum. At the time we helped Microport get started, we had already been supporting SCO as well as IBM Xenix for over a year. We still do support SCO. Are you suggesting that Bell Tech did something wrong by supporting both SCO and Microport? We have always supported SCO releases throughout our product line, and we continue to do joint ventures and joint development activities with SCO. Don't flame at me for having the integrity of calling the shots as I saw them in my UNIX/WORLD article despite the fact that my pre-existing commercial interests depended on SCO. > > Now we're off on Bell's the Greatest Unix? Not our words! If you read our literature, postings, advertising, etc, you see that we don't have "a UNIX." We are simply Intel's publisher for their own Intel/AT&T commercial shrink-wrapped binary product. Again, are you suggesting that we're doing something wrong by supporting IBM, SCO, Interactive,and Intel/AT&T? What's wrong with trying to bring the UNIX community direct access to the latest, hottest efforts in UNIX being done at AT&T and Intel, without any devaluing proprietarization? Why should only Bill Gates, Doug Micheals, and Ron Fisher be able to buy UNIX direct? Why shouldn't you (well, maybe not you) and other USENET people enjoy direct access to Intel/AT&T? > > Seems like Bell's leader changes tunes faster than most folks change > underclothes, and vacillates like a windshield wiper. In an article > in the 386/ix mail group, it would look like Dimitri himself wrote all > of the best parts of the Intel/Interactive/Bell drivers, and half of the > UNIX itself. Let's stick to the facts: If you read the position papers on UNIX Bell Tech circulated going back to 1985, you'll see we've always backed the idea of a standard, complete System V that sells for the same price as DOS. We helped SCO initially because it was the best thing going, then we added support for Microport when that looked like it might help. We supported Intel/AT&T because that was zeroing on the same goal. We added support for 386/ix from Interactive because it seemed that an industry consensus on binary compatible real System V's would help the critical mass supporting low cost releases based on the Intel/AT&T subsidized development effort for the '386. We think the UNIX market needs binary compatibility and critical mass selling for the same price as DOS. We'll always back any effort to make that happen even if it means we have to support (as we do now), 3 or 4 different operating systems. We dropped Microport support because of limited resources: SCO and Interactive have overwhelmingly larger market share than Microport (no one can say in two years of trying that we didn't do our share of helping Microport!), and that if you must pick only one "generic" release to support then you should first pick the root of all generic releases, the Intel/AT&T release. You know, Pete, the whole UNIX market is spreading new wings and soaring high on the strength of the '386. This is an exciting, dynamic time to be alive in the UNIX market, a time that those of us who have worked with UNIX for 10 or 12 years have waited long to see. A key part of what's taken us all here is the UNIX community's willingness to tell it like it is technically, hold fast to what's right, and to try to avoid personal character assassination in lieu of contributing technical advances to the common good ... Can we get back to improving UNIX and just skip the personal political intrigues? Thanks to all in this group for putting up with such a long reply! Dimitri Rotow, Bell Technologies