karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/08/90)
In article <1353@polari.UUCP> corwin@polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes: >In article <6734@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: >> If you bought SCO Xenix just 4 months ago and you're already thinking of >> upgrading to SCO UNIX, it's your own fault for not thinking ahead back >> then and simply buying SCO UNIX. It was shipping then..... > Firts of all it was far from stable, and second of all he does not > need to be thinking of upgradind NOW, just upgrading some time in > the future when it makes since to. An open letter to SCO -- Do you intend to offer a free upgrade to the next release (from Unix 3.2.0) once it's out? Normally I wouldn't expect this, but the stability problems I've seen with the Unix 3.2.0 release are serious enough that I am asking, in the open, on behalf of one of our clients. The problems include but are not limited to: o System instabilities, manifesting as crashes under certain conditions (tape + Vp/ix + communications == trouble) and trouble with tape drivers in general (Archive Viper drives require a "tape reset" between operations?!). These problems are new to SCO Unix 3.2; Xenix on the same hardware doesn't have any of these difficulties. o Serious problems with the rcc compiler, including files in the wrong place, code which won't compile (but does under ISC's compiler), etc. o Inability to recognize some mice properly (including the mouse on the ATI VGA Wonder cards). These mice work properly under both MSDOS and ISC Unix 2.0.2, yet fail under SCO Unix 3.2. o Inability to handle 19200 baud communications without buying an expensive intelligent I/O board. Xenix didn't have this problem. o A "C2" security system which gets in the way and can't be disabled. ("Relax" mode does not disable it entirely). This makes some common administrator operations either dangerous or impossible, and requires that nearly all administration go through the menu system. o Rumors abound that the TCP/IP networking code uses broadcast packets to an undocumented port number in the name of license security (ie: to make sure you don't run one copy of TCP/IP on 2 systems). This is evil and rude if true, especially on large networks. Broadcasts require a response from every device on the net, and in a large network (2000 devices, for example) can bring performance to new lows. License validation at installation is one thing (which SCO does now and we don't object to); active validation at the expense of performance is another and is completely unacceptable. SCO, when is an upgrade going to be available? Will it address all of the above concerns? And will it be no-charge to your current Unix 3.2 customer base? These are very serious questions. The problems I've seen with the 3.2.0 release are rather nasty and difficult to isolate. It's not stable enough for us to sell to commercial clients (who we have to be able to support and expect perfect operational records), and definately not up to the usual SCO level of quality. It doesn't even come close to SCO Xenix's record around here; we have sites which have been up for over a half-year without a shutdown or untoward incident! Then there's the issue of compatibility. The entire idea of having Unix 3.2 is that administration and programming for it are a >standard<. By imposing the C2 security layer, SCO has destroyed compatiblity at the administration level. That is very important to the customer who already has a bunch of System V R3.2 systems in house and doesn't want to learn the system all over again (he shouldn't have to!) I've been a staunch SCO supporter for quite a while, but the Unix 3.2 release has me more than a little upset. We have one customer who has it, and that's going to be it for us until we see some major improvements -- both in the software and the support/bug repair departments. Those improvements are going to have to be demonstrated -- something that SCO may or may not see fit to do for us. We certainly aren't about to make an investment in the package as it is now, Open Desktop or not. One thing to consider -- there are lots of fish in the sea. With Xenix you had a unique and competitive product for business. Now, we can choose from several vendors, all of whom offer essentially the same thing: o ISC 2.0.2 (3.2) o AT&T 3.2 o INTEL 3.2 o ESIX 3.2 o SCO Unix 3.2 You can't just be equivalent -- you have to do it better than the next guy; either better or cheaper, preferrably both. ISC is trying real hard to make sure that you have a tough job in front of you. Their 75% discount on dealer demo copies makes it cheap for us to keep the current versions available for demonstration and in-house use. Their upgrades are inexpensive, far less expensive than yours have ever been. Again, for SCO and anyone else who's listening -- BUG FIXES ARE NOT SUPPORT. Regardless of what your license says, customers have the right to expect that their software is functional and reasonably bug-free. They should not have to pay to get bugs fixed -- functionality enhancements, yes, bug fixes no. If a manufacturer wants to stick to his/her guns on this one, and say "you paid for diskettes, regardless of what was on them" then we will buy and resell someone else's implementation. No further discussion is necessary or fruitful. We're not looking to sue someone over defects; we are looking to get defects resolved in a reasonable timeframe. The customer paid for what was represented as functional and stable software. That's the reasonable man's expectation, and that is what we require. We go to bat for our customers when they have a problem -- we must have a responsive organization behind the products we resell, or we may as well quit this business entirely. Finally, with ISC we can call in and talk to a technician immediately. SCO requires a callback, usually with a 24-48 hour delay. This is increasingly unacceptable. If SCO can't handle the direct support burden, perhaps they should allow only resellers to call the technical people, and have customers go to their dealers for support questions. It might unclog the lines. Alternately, if you're making such a tidy sum on Softcare Services, add more techs! ISC has recently seen the light. We used to flame them regularly, now we resell their product. SCO used to understand these items well. We received excellent service for over two years, that is a matter of record and something we don't deny. We'd like to be able to continue to recommend and sell your operating systems products. The ball is in your court. Sincerely, -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/08/90)
One correction I was not aware of: SCO has been in contact (just in the last couple of days) with the customer of ours that has been having trouble. I'll keep the net (and SCO, of course) posted on the progress that is made on the stability issues as conditions change. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"