mark@gizzmo.UUCP (mark hilliard) (11/27/89)
In article <PCG.89Nov20120912@emerald.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@emerald.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >If I were your CEO I would fire you straight away. If your >company demands the best from you, why are you using any software >product that is explicitly described as not guaranteed fit for >any purpose, not merchantable, etc...? Why are you risking the >company's dollar on something that it must use at its own risk, >without knowing it? >If I were your CEO I would hold you accountable for investing >thousands of company dollars in products about which the >suppliers, from AT&T onwards, are not prepared to make any >representation at all, and not telling me; actually deluding me >that I should expect everything to work smoothly. Thank goodness that you are NOT the CEO of ANY large or small corporation! In order to advance or even keep up with other companies in the world market, a company MUST be willing to take chances and have the insite to expect problems with any NEW product. ISC has a very solid product on the market, yet we must expect problems as the product continues to evolve. If you never evaluate a new product how can you know if it will fit your companies requirnments? Have you every bought a software product that was totally without risk? ISC provides much more than "disk replacement". They were slow on the startup of their tech support, but they are on line now, and have provided very good support to thousands of customers. They will have problems, and there will be some problems that they will not be able to fix, but that is all part of doing business. I'm sorry but working under the "no risk" umbrella that you have portrayed would be like working in the dark ages. Any one want to go back to CPM? _ Mark Hilliard N2HHR rutgers!rochester!kodak!gizzmo!mark
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (11/27/89)
>problems with any NEW product. ISC has a very solid product on the market, >yet we must expect problems as the product continues to evolve. If you I would disagree. ISC's product does not work as advertised and with the poor documentation I consider it not even in the running in it's current stage. I have suggested that my users invest in a real product such as SCO 3.2 - since I know they will get support from real people with a professional attitude. I have heard through the grapevine from a QNX user that Kodak has made the switch to QNX - is this true?
lisbon@vpnet.UUCP (Gerry Swetsky) (11/28/89)
larry@nstar.UUCP [Larry Snyder] says: > >problems with any NEW product. ISC has a very solid product on the market, > >yet we must expect problems as the product continues to evolve. If you > > I would disagree. ISC's product does not work as advertised and with the > poor documentation I consider it not even in the running in it's current > stage. Larry, don't you suppose the rest of us are tired of hearing about your personal war with Interactive? Folks, 2.0.2 is running here at vpnet, and quite well too, I might add. -- ============================================================================= | Help stamp out stupid .signature files! Gerry Swetsky | | | | Home (708)833-8122 Vpnet (708)833-8126 lisbon@vpnet.uucp | =============================================================================
marc@Clik.QC.CA (Marc Boucher) (11/29/89)
In article <[25711bb0:160.7]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP> akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
<>problems with any NEW product. ISC has a very solid product on the market,
<>yet we must expect problems as the product continues to evolve. If you
<
<I would disagree. ISC's product does not work as advertised and with the
<poor documentation I consider it not even in the running in it's current
<stage. I have suggested that my users invest in a real product such as
<SCO 3.2 - since I know they will get support from real people with a
<professional attitude.
I agree. We are using 386/ix here with lost of problems, most of them
regarding their TCP/IP package which is really still beta.. (interlan driver
full of bugs, most utilities don't support /etc/shadow etc.. really silly
stuff that could be easily corrected..)
--
Marc Boucher, sys/netadm @ CLIK Telematique Inc - marc@clik.qc.ca
5144668932_home 5149337161_clik 5149332164_fax - Postmaster@clik.qc.caakcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (11/30/89)
>In article <[25711bb0:160.7]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP> akcs.larry@nstar.UU CP >(Larry Snyder) writes: ><>problems with any NEW product. ISC has a very solid product on the market, ><>yet we must expect problems as the product continues to evolve. If you >< ><I would disagree. ISC's product does not work as advertised and with the ><poor documentation I consider it not even in the running in it's current ><stage. I have suggested that my users invest in a real product such as ><SCO 3.2 - since I know they will get support from real people with a ><professional attitude. > I agree. We are using 386/ix here with lost of problems, most of them >regarding their TCP/IP package which is really still beta.. (interlan driver >full of bugs, most utilities don't support /etc/shadow etc.. really silly >stuff that could be easily corrected..) > I don't believe that I wrote the above which was quoted. I tried ISC 2.02 and felt it was full of problems, poor documentation, and promises made by the support department in Hollis which were never kept and wouldn't suggest anyone purchasing the product. I would consider ISC Unix 3.2 anything but ready for prime time. I also would suggest SCO 3.2 - over ISC 3.2 to anyone in the market. -- Larry Snyder larry@nstar Brian at ISC in Hollis, when are we going to get the RA you promised?
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (11/30/89)
In article <[25745ed1:160.9]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP>, akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > >In article <[25711bb0:160.7]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP> akcs.larry@nstar.UU > CP [ lots of stuff about how bad 386/ix is deleted ] Well, with all the ragging going on about 386/ix I guess it's time for someone who is happy with the product to stand up and say so. So here I am. I have had 386/ix 2.0.2 running on a multitude of different 386 systems (20MHz, 33MHz, import, USA, etc). I use all kinds of add on boards including graphics display cards that are 1600x1200 monochrome, multi-port serial cards, ethernet cards, tape drives, high performance disk controllers, etc.) I have been very satisfied with the reliability and performance of 386/ix. I run NFS, tcp-ip, X11, VPix without any problems. I have run xenix software on this system without any problems. In fact, due to a development requirement I even loaded my Xenix system in to a 386/ix file system and ran in a Xenix environment by performing a chroot to the xenix root. My only perk with Interactive is that they don't let me call them when I had a problem. I had to go through my distributer who knows much less then I do about the product. Of course, I don't want to have to pay for the ability to call Interactive since I already paid $3,000 for my software. All in all, for me 386/ix works as well as, if not better than, I expected. BTW, I also have Bell Tech Unix 3.2, and SCO Xenix 2.3.2 and I much prefer 386/ix to both of them. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Conor P. Cahill uunet!virtech!cpcahil 703-430-9247 ! | Virtual Technologies Inc., P. O. Box 876, Sterling, VA 22170 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (12/01/89)
>I have been very satisfied with the reliability and performance of 386/ix. >I run NFS, tcp-ip, X11, VPix without any problems. I have run xenix software How has the file system managed with complete un-attended power downs? Try pulling the plug a couple of times and see what happens. I've lost the power a couple of times to this machine (running SCO) and have NEVER lost a file let alone the ability to boot the machine (which was the case SEVERAL times when running ISC 2.02). >My only perk with Interactive is that they don't let me call them when I had >a problem. I had to go through my distributer who knows much less then I do When you call Hollis - you get information that is out-dated.. They were not aware of the X5 kernel configuration kit 3 weeks after it was released. >about the product. Of course, I don't want to have to pay for the ability >to call Interactive since I already paid $3,000 for my software. I feel sorry for you spending $3000 for ISC. I purchased it through the 75% off retail plan (for anyone who want's to be a dealer) and still feel ripped off.
wek@point.UUCP (Bill Kuykendall) (12/01/89)
> Larry, don't you suppose the rest of us are tired of hearing about > your personal war with Interactive? Folks, 2.0.2 is running here > at vpnet, and quite well too, I might add. That's high praise for ISC Gerry, considering the personal war you (and Karl Deninger on your behalf) waged with ISC a few months ago. I'm glad to hear that everything is running smoothly now. ------ Bill K
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (12/01/89)
In article <[484.5]comp.unix.i386;1@point.UUCP> wek@point.UUCP (Bill Kuykendall) writes: >> Larry, don't you suppose the rest of us are tired of hearing about >> your personal war with Interactive? Folks, 2.0.2 is running here >> at vpnet, and quite well too, I might add. > >That's high praise for ISC Gerry, considering the personal war you (and Karl >Deninger on your behalf) waged with ISC a few months ago. I'm glad to hear >that everything is running smoothly now. Question for those who should be in the know: Can we still get the developer's discount (75%) on the 386/ix software? It >does< appear to work ok now, and if so we might be interested in getting ahold of a copy complete with all the add-on jollies :-) Who do I call to find out about all this kind of stuff? Our distributors (some of who stock ISC) don't have any idea whether that deal is still available... or was it only for the "beta testers" :-) Replies via email, posts, and phone calls welcome. -- 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"
trb@haddock.ima.isc.com (Andrew Tannenbaum) (12/02/89)
These are my impressions as an ISC employee and 386/ix user. They're not ISC policy. As far as I know, the /etc/shadow problems with rlogin were cleared up in 2.0.2, which has been available for many months. Complaining about our Interlan support isn't quite fair, since I'm pretty sure that Interlan handles it themselves, we don't. (This was the last I heard on Interlan support, anyway - I assume we're talking about board-based NP600 ethernet, right?) In article <[2575a8ad:160.11]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP> akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > How has the file system managed with complete un-attended power downs? Try > pulling the plug a couple of times and see what happens. I've lost the > power a couple of times to this machine (running SCO) and have NEVER lost a > file let alone the ability to boot the machine (which was the case SEVERAL > times when running ISC 2.02). (Assuming robust hardware) I have never had or seen any problems with our ability to come back after shutting off the power with the system running. It boots, fscks (rebuilding the free list, which we keep in a bitmap) and runs multi-user. In a Sys V file system, files open with output in progress will end up in lost+found. I don't see how you can avoid that. If you are talking about "pulling the plug a couple of times," perhaps you are describing a hardware problem - I don't see what this has to do with 386/ix. Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Cambridge, MA +1 617 661 7474
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (12/02/89)
In article <[2575a8ad:160.11]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP>, akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > >I have been very satisfied with the reliability and performance of 386/ix. > >I run NFS, tcp-ip, X11, VPix without any problems. I have run xenix software > > How has the file system managed with complete un-attended power downs? Try > pulling the plug a couple of times and see what happens. I've lost the > power a couple of times to this machine (running SCO) and have NEVER lost a > file let alone the ability to boot the machine (which was the case SEVERAL > times when running ISC 2.02). I have had multiple power outages (made worse by the fact that I use a caching disk controller with 2 1/2 meg of cache) and the only files that I have had trouble with are /tmp files, or files that I was just in the progress of creating/writing. The system has never had trouble rebooting from power outages nor from the lockups that I have gotted from some hardware glitch in my graphics display whenever I leave the monitor on for more than 12 to 15 hours and then turn it off. Since it is directly related to turning off the monitor, I can hardly blame interactive. > I feel sorry for you spending $3000 for ISC. I purchased it through the > 75% off retail plan (for anyone who want's to be a dealer) and still feel > ripped off. I don't feel ripped off. $3000 is only about 10 % of the cost of my system. Of course I wouldn't object if Interactive decided that they should reduce prices. BTW - last time I checked, SCO Xenix prices were not much better (and in fact, many pieces that I have in 386/ix were not available in Xenix). -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Conor P. Cahill uunet!virtech!cpcahil 703-430-9247 ! | Virtual Technologies Inc., P. O. Box 876, Sterling, VA 22170 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (12/02/89)
In article <[2575a8ad:160.11]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP> akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >How has the file system managed with complete un-attended power downs? Try >pulling the plug a couple of times and see what happens. I've lost the >power a couple of times to this machine (running SCO) and have NEVER lost a >file let alone the ability to boot the machine (which was the case SEVERAL >times when running ISC 2.02). This is completely different from my experiences. The only files that I have seen get damaged on a sudden power outage are Korn shell history files. They are always found by fsck and linked into lost+found, but who cares. Never had the machine fail to boot, either. Been running ISC since February, 1988. We lose power around here frequently, last time I checked there must've been 2 dozen Korn history files in lost+found, dating back to April. Larry's experiences seem to be wildly different from those of most ISC users. You have to wonder if there wasn't some subtle hardware incompatibility with his system or something. On the other hand, people seem to be nervous about making the switch from SCO Xenix to SCO UNIX because of a perception that SCO UNIX is buggy. I haven't the slightest idea, myself, but they must have some reason for feeling that way. Personally, I'd like to see the switch happen quicker, and while I'd recommend ISC first, I have no real reason for preferring it other than its been very good to me. Which is exactly the reason that many SCO Xenix customers seem to prefer sticking with SCO when they make the switch to UNIX. I haven't been keeping up with the price comparisons, but a customer reported to me that he just picked up the ISC two user runtime, quantity one, for $219 from a discount software distributor. I suppose that will be completely without support, but it seemed very competitive with *all* of the other OS alternatives on 386 hardware to me. -Rick -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ?????? mention PC Research,Inc.| WE'RE SHIPPING your uunet!pcrat!rick| Ask about FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) FAX # (201) 389-8963 | Or JetRoff - troff postprocessor for the HP {Laser,Desk}Jet
lisbon@vpnet.UUCP (Gerry Swetsky) (12/02/89)
> How has the file system managed with complete un-attended power downs? This has happened quite a few times here at vpnet (thanks, Common- wealth Edison). The file system survives without a hitch. Here's a tip. Damage generally isn't incurred when the power is lost but when the power is subsequently restored. Quite often a surge is involved with the restoration. Don't allow the system to come up when the power is restored. Here at vpnet we have a drop-out relay that assures that once the power is down, it stays down till it is reset manually. And we have yet to have a problem with Interactive 1.0.9, 2.0.1 OR 2.0.2. Oh, this isn't a hardware conference? I'm SO embarrassed! -- ============================================================================= | Help stamp out stupid .signature files! Gerry Swetsky | | | | Home (708)833-8122 Vpnet (708)833-8126 lisbon@vpnet.uucp | =============================================================================
jlg@odicon.UUCP (John L. Grzesiak) (12/03/89)
In article <106@gizzmo.UUCP>, mark@gizzmo.UUCP (mark hilliard) writes: > In article <PCG.89Nov20120912@emerald.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@emerald.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > > > >If I were your CEO I would fire you straight away. If your > Thank goodness that you are NOT the CEO of ANY large or small corporation! I must agree with Mark here, no risk systems and guarantee's are fine in theory, yet there has been no practical application of it. Probably because the human condition has not yet been perfected. Methinks Piercarlo opens his mouth a bit too often and frequently tastes foot, for any CEO that does doesn't understand risk and diplomacy as well as a plethora of legal conditions is an anachronism in today's business world. As someone matures into CEO material they have a balance of Assertive business sense coupled with an acceptance of reality. They also KNOW what it is like to have been given sales pitches, and sold a bill of goods. Anyone who expects perfection from ANY employee in light of reality is both immature and irresponsible. (And not likely to rise to the position of CEO anyway) P.S. I realize that much of this is incendiary material, it is , however, incentive for all involved (Myself included) to think before keying responses. This is what I intended to say.... *-----------------------------------------------------------------* * John Grzesiak @ Omega Dynamics : Specializing in UNIX/XENIX * * Meriden Ct USA : Consulting . . . * * jlg@odicon or spock!odicon!jlg : gaboon!odicon!jlg * *-----------------------------------------------------------------*
jlg@odicon.UUCP (John L. Grzesiak) (12/03/89)
In article <[25711bb0:160.7]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP>, akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > >problems with any NEW product. ISC has a very solid product on the market, > >yet we must expect problems as the product continues to evolve. If you > > I would disagree. ISC's product does not work as advertised and with the > poor documentation I consider it not even in the running in it's current > stage. I have suggested that my users invest in a real product such as > SCO 3.2 - since I know they will get support from real people with a > professional attitude. Wow , some people do continue to live in a vacuum. While I do agree that Interactive has not chosen to spend an inordinate amount of time and money in documantation, and that SCO 's is head and shoulders above Interactive in this respect, this is the limit of my agreement. After having used early I.S.C. (pre 386) and being fairly satisfied, I was persuaded to try SCO Xenix. I was impressed by their beautifull full page adds and the impression they had made of certain stodgy elements in the company I worked for at the time. Early experience with SCO was exciting (pre 3.2 annoucement or commitment), SCO really HAD a technical support department, my questions were reasonbly answered (both expedient and technically accurate), however after the announcement of 3.2 the world had changed, no longer was the SCO experience a pleasant one, for SCO adopted the policy of non-support for XENIX, that UNIX 3.2 was the wave of the future and SCO was going to promote that wave by removing almost ALL of it's engineering from XENIX and accelerating the port of their 3.2 UNIX. In addition , I feel SCO rushed a very immature 3.2 to market, for there are some major problems with it. All SCO did was the major work with almost NO attention to details (Example: a dd command that fails to write the last track of a DS/HD 5 1/4 floppy) This is NOT an obscure bug. It does not belong in a production operating system. Add to that, a very poor and untested SCSI driver, non-function parallel printing (it works - just barely..) ... and you get a very BAD taste in your mouth , when you expected a production operating system. Interactive on the other hand, while not a system for a novice (Due to poor documantation) is absolutely no problem for experienced UNIX users and administrators and for any user that was willing to learn UNIX as a generic product with the many fine books written and readily available at local bookstores. Add to that, with the notable exception of problems in 2.02 NFS , the 2.02 product is a very solid and stable product. To their credit Interactive focused on details of providing solid, first time functionality. They were NOT willing to release a half cooked OS and fix it on the fly. And yes , even Interactive has bugs that they were'nt aware of , but this was not due to any rush on Interactive's part to get the product to market. On a lighter note there are differences in the two products that extend beyond the above. SCO has done a fairly neat job of automating the System Administrators package, with the only disadvantage that is visible, is that it is inflexible to those of us who prefer manual Administration. And Interactive's Admin is fairly standard AT&T (ala 3BX flavor). Before this posting become a completely pro-Interactive anti-SCO monolouge let me state that I have had good experiences (at different times) with both companies, and I have also been unsatisfied (at different times) with both companies and neither company has show any particular unique ability to satisfy all customer problems. The bottom line of what I am saying is that Interactive has solved many of it's internal problems with support in addition to having a very mature UNIX product. SCO , while having a very stable XENIX product is not yet ready to be a UNIX player and they have a LOT to learn about the feelings of Corporations and Consultants who base their futures on the best that can be found. In my opinion SCO has betrayed my faith in their XENIX product and has undermined my future by not supporting a product that they claimed they would continue to support. They have left me high and dry in my work today to pursue future sales and $$$$. ANY company who's present is not at least as important as it's future does not merit serious consideration. *-----------------------------------------------------------------* * John Grzesiak @ Omega Dynamics : Specializing in UNIX/XENIX * * Meriden Ct USA : Consulting . . . * * jlg@odicon or spock!odicon!jlg : gaboon!odicon!jlg * *-----------------------------------------------------------------*
marc@Clik.QC.CA (Marc Boucher) (12/03/89)
In article <894@zoom.Clik.QC.CA> I, marc@clik.qc.ca (Marc Boucher) write: > > I agree. We are using 386/ix here with lost of problems, most of them > > regarding their TCP/IP package which is really still beta.. (interlan driver > > full of bugs, most utilities don't support /etc/shadow etc.. really silly > > stuff that could be easily corrected..) In message <8912011841.AA01534@haddock.IMA.ISC.COM>, Andrew Tannenbaum replies: > Marc, > As far as I know, the /etc/shadow problems were fixed in 2.0.2 (whcih > has been shipping for many months now). Also, we do not support the > interlan stuff, interlan (or micom, or whatever they're called today) > does. Are you sure about the validity of your complaints? This is NOT true. Off the top of my head: /etc/rexecd in 2.0.2 does not work with /etc/shadow.. Try it. I have spoken to Interlan and they confirmed that INTERACTIVE was supposed to do the support of the drivers bundled with the 386/ix tcpip package. It is quite funny to get feedback from INTERACTIVE after these open remarks, when i have not received any echo from support@isc.com on a mail I sent some time ago about reinstallation problems. I have also been disappointed with your telephone support. I have been stupidly asked many times for the "exact error message" with to the word precision! so that the ignorant interactive employee could look it up in her miracle problem solving database. I am crossposting this reply to the comp.unix.i386 newsgroup. > Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Cambridge, MA +1 617 661 7474 -- Marc Boucher, sys/netadm @ CLIK Telematique Inc - marc@clik.qc.ca 5144668932_home 5149337161_clik 5149332164_fax - Postmaster@clik.qc.ca
kmoore@shiloh.UUCP (kirk moore) (12/03/89)
I have had it. I read this group not for the complainers and babies, but to see how others deal with the problems that crop up from time to time. I work on a AS 400, and let me tell you, with 6 million lines of code for the operating system, it is none to perfect. Larry: If you dont like to product and the people, stop you complaining, throw the product up on the self and go to SCO, or Intel. I have just read that they have released a version Unix. I have but one favor to ask, please SHUT UP. I have enough. To Eveyone Else: Please forgive the flame. I have read with alot of interest, the comments of this room. If this is a grip room, please let me know and I will drop the room. I have never seen so many complaints about a product. If when we had upgraded from the System 38 to the As400, we had complained as much as some in this room, I have no reason to believe IBM would have taken the AS400 home. I have found that with any peice of software there are going to be problems, but I have fun working them out and then sharing the results with others that are interested. Even MS-DOS in all its simpleness has bugs. Yet we work around then and create patches that fix the problem. I could tell horror stories about operating systems that had bugs, but whats the use. I just have a feeling that some would complain if the product had come out perfect and no bugs were found at all. Such is life..... Kmoore
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (12/03/89)
It's amazing - since posting my original message I must have received about 10 pieces of mail from other folks for whom ISC support in Hollis has left a bad taste in their mouths - many of which mentioned that after calling Hollis - they learned nothing and found their answers from other users via this newgroup. I'll shut up with the "bitching" (or at least try to). Personally I would like to see all the Unix vendors doing quite well. The ISC file system is so fast - that's one of the things I miss - not only that - I hear "rn" runs very nice under ISC.
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (12/03/89)
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) writes: >In article <[2575a8ad:160.11]comp.unix.i386;1@nstar.UUCP> akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >>How has the file system managed with complete un-attended power downs? Try >>pulling the plug a couple of times and see what happens. I've lost the >>power a couple of times to this machine (running SCO) and have NEVER lost a >>file let alone the ability to boot the machine (which was the case SEVERAL >>times when running ISC 2.02). >This is completely different from my experiences. Mine too. I used to accidentally kick the plug out all the time and it'd happily reboot and rebuild the free list. Never lost a file. This was with 2.0.2. >Larry's experiences seem to be wildly different from those of >most ISC users. Different than mine, that's for sure. Consider that the Xenix networking support configured STREAMS incorrectly, causing the network to fail sporadically (and hang the system; all kinds of strange things happen when STREAMS runs out of NBLKs). ISC worked out-of-the-box. The Xenix compiler seemed very flaky when optimizing, the ISC compiler worked well with only one exception (fns.c in GNU emacs). There is no such beast as X11R3 for Xenix, the ISC one worked extremely well. I've used both, and ESIX too, and ISC provided better value than the others, although I would really like better documentation (and job control, but that's another story). A satisfied developer, jim frost madd@std.com
jackv@turnkey.gryphon.COM (Jack F. Vogel) (12/04/89)
In article <935@zoom.Clik.QC.CA> marc@Clik.QC.CA (Marc Boucher) writes: > I have also been disappointed with your telephone support. I have been >stupidly asked many times for the "exact error message" with to the word >precision! so that the ignorant interactive employee could look it up in her >miracle problem solving database. I can't really speak for Interactive's support, but it seems absurd to complain about somebody requiring you to give them an accurate account of some error condition. We require the same thing from our customers, and this is NOT so some "ignorant" employee can check a database, it is so I can determine using the source code what was going on in the particular error. There may be many similar messages in the kernel or application source, so that an exact quote becomes critical for accurate analysis. Naturally there are different levels of support, some first level persons may not really be developers, they may not know the code and thus use some database of reported problems, but even so their report will eventually need to make its way to the development level and the report's completeness and accuracy will determine if it gets fixed or not. I can appreciate someone's frustration at not having a problem fixed, or not having a receptive support person, but don't let that cloud the issues! Disclaimer: These are my opinions, not necessarily LCC's or IBM's -- Jack F. Vogel jackv@seas.ucla.edu AIX Technical Support - or - Locus Computing Corp. jackv@ifs.umich.edu
vjs@calcite.UUCP (Vernon Schryver) (12/04/89)
In article <935@zoom.Clik.QC.CA>, marc@Clik.QC.CA (Marc Boucher) writes: > ... I have been > stupidly asked many times for the "exact error message" with to the word > precision! so that the ignorant interactive employee could look it up in her > miracle problem solving database. > > Marc Boucher, sys/netadm @ CLIK Telematique Inc - marc@clik.qc.ca > 5144668932_home 5149337161_clik 5149332164_fax - Postmaster@clik.qc.ca Without intending to comment in any way about ISC support, getting the exact text is vital. How many times have you been told "x is broken" only to discover that "x" had nothing to do with anything but ideas about how "y" works, where "y" is what failed? Bug reports tend to contain purported error messages resembling the most common error message, regardless of what was actually on the screen. Perhaps this is because things are often not written down, and people can remember only what we (think we) understand. When someone asks my help, I insist on the exact error message and the complete, undigested, unanalyzed symptoms. When I forget, everyone looks stupid and gets angry. E.g. last week at my day job (nothing to do with 386's or ISC) a customer, a support person, and I wasted hours of long distance phone time arguing about how and whether 'cat foo>/dev/tty' discards ESC characters, while had I asked, the problem was obviously an `stty ixany` in /usr/spool/lp/interface/*. Similarly, a useful stratety for RTFM questions is to tell the caller to never mind that you wrote the manual, that your copy is not handy, and ask to be read the relevant section, so that you can "figure out" the answer. The lazy soon find others to hassle, the inexperienced discover they can read the manuals, and the answer is given. At the cost of looking senile, you have avoided insulting the caller. Vernon Schryver vjs@calcite.uucp
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (12/04/89)
>Mine too. I used to accidentally kick the plug out all the time and >it'd happily reboot and rebuild the free list. Never lost a file. >This was with 2.0.2. Maybe I should re-try 2.02? How is your machine handling high speed serial IO with bi-directional communications?
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/05/89)
In article <273@odicon.UUCP> jlg@odicon.UUCP (John L. Grzesiak) writes:
... for any CEO that does doesn't understand risk and diplomacy as well
as a plethora of legal conditions is an anachronism in today's business
world.
Precisely. The original poster for this thread was complaining bitterly that
after having sunk a couple grand in ISC sw they did not solve his problem
with some brand of keyboard ASAP (or at all), and that his CEO would not be
pleased. I wrote a reply in the same stroppy style, as a parody, but making a
serious point, that given the current technical/legal environment,
commercial sw performance should never be taken for granted, and that this
is a risk of which CEOs should be made aware, because it entails, among
other things, a much greater commitment of capital...
As someone matures into CEO material they have a balance of Assertive
business sense coupled with an acceptance of reality.
If they are told that reality is such that with most sw products you are
utterly on your own. Otherwise a CEO may well reasonably expect that sw
comes with the same backing by the supplier as hw. Incidentally the CEO in
question is the CEO of a company supplying sw, so he/she should have known,
and formed more cynical expectations than those attributed to him/her.
They also KNOW what it is like to have been given sales pitches, and
sold a bill of goods. Anyone who expects perfection from ANY employee
in light of reality is both immature and irresponsible.
That is why any mature/esponsible executive likes to know where his/her
risks stand, e.g. as to contractual obligations of suppliers, to form
realistic expectations as to the product.
(And not likely to rise to the position of CEO anyway)
Unfortunately, according to many sources, not least of which Fortune,
Novermber issue, many American CEOs seem to be on an extended ego trip, and
this is not good for US industry... But this is entirely another topic from
not expecting too much of current sw products, and knowing it.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukerc@khijol.UUCP (Edwin R. Carp) (12/05/89)
In article <430@shiloh.UUCP> kmoore@shiloh.UUCP (kirk moore) writes: > [lots of stuff on one line] Kirk, is your editor broken or something, or do you just not know how to BREAK YOUR LINES UP SO OTHERS CAN READ THEM!! For someone who likes to insult others, you don't display a whole lot of intelligence yourself.
lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin) (12/07/89)
Larry Snyder (akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP) writes: >>I have been very satisfied with the reliability and performance of 386/ix. >>I run NFS, tcp-ip, X11, VPix without any problems. I have run xenix software > >How has the file system managed with complete un-attended power downs? Try >pulling the plug a couple of times and see what happens. I've lost the >power a couple of times to this machine (running SCO) and have NEVER lost a >file let alone the ability to boot the machine (which was the case SEVERAL >times when running ISC 2.02). I think this depends on your hardware -- Xenix is better on some systems, 386/ix on others. We have had only one problem with 386/ix that I recall, and that was due (as it turned out) to a faulty hard disk. We sell both Xenix and 386/ix, and have many, many more problems with Xenix and corrupted filesystems (`my /usr/spool has turned into a FIFO, help!') than with 386/ix. We have had a couple of unbootables, but the hard disks could be mounted on the floppy and everything recovered. This is often caused -- it seems -- by disk or controllers doing nasty thigs on a power cut. >>My only perk with Interactive is that they don't let me call them when I had >>a problem. I had to go through my distributer who knows much less then I do In the UK there is only one (maybe 2 now) 386/ix distributor, and they have a monopoly by virtue of the huge fee ISC charge to be a distributor. So we are a dealer, not a distributor, for both 386/ix and Xenix (for other reasons). But I can still call both Interactive and SCO, and both companies are helpful and courteous. Perhaps because they are larger, SCO are not so good at returning calls, and it's often hard to get through to the right person there, but they do answer. >I feel sorry for you spending $3000 for ISC. I purchased it through the >75% off retail plan (for anyone who wants to be a dealer) and still feel >ripped off. As this (assuming you have a full system) is so cheap, compared to both SCO Xenix and 386/ix, I am not at all sorry! There is no 75% plan in the UK as far as I am aware. In general, I reccommend to people that they look at Xenix if they have not used Unix and want to use a few applications & little else. If they want to do development work, especially with portability to or from System V or BSD systems, I suggest that they look at 386/ix. Especially since ISC are so far ahead of SCO in releaseing V.3.2, and will no doubt be a few months (years?) ahead with V.4. I think you can probably find `hard-luck' stories about both products. Both products, and both companies, are a lot better than a number of others who spring to mind. Can you say `micr .... er, well, I certainly can't :-) :-) Lee -- Liam R. Quin, Unixsys (UK) Ltd [note: not an employee of "sq" - a visitor!] lee@sq.com (Whilst visiting Canada from England, until Christmas) -- I think I'm going to come out at last... -- What? Admit you're not a fundamentalist Jew? They'll *crucify* you! :-)
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (12/08/89)
In article <935@zoom.Clik.QC.CA> marc@Clik.QC.CA (Marc Boucher) writes: (Gripes about Interactive deleted - wjv) > I have also been disappointed with your telephone support. I have been >stupidly asked many times for the "exact error message" with to the word >precision! so that the ignorant interactive employee could look it up in her >miracle problem solving database. Marc - I have several clients with small Unix/Xenix systems. I often get a call and the conversation goes something like this. "I got an error message and now ...." "What did the error message say?" "Something about foo" I think a moment, and that sounds implausible, so I say. "Are you sure it didn't say bar" "Yeh, that might be it too." "When it happens again, write down the entire error message EXACTLY, and call me back." I'm not a veterinarian. My patients have to tell me what's wrong. To call an employee ignorant because he is trying to help you is way off base. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
root@shiloh.UUCP (Admin) (12/09/89)
I agree, we have all had the horror stories. We have all heard them, but I have heard more about SCO that ISC. I would like to offer the net a "I'm sorry". If I have broken SOP, with my comments to Larry, them I am sorry. I have been on the recieving end of SCO service and product support. I also have been on the recieving end of the same from ISC. As stated in earlier posts, I have the commentment with ISC products. I have found them very, very, very relieable for myself, and my customers. Again, if I have broken SOP, please forgive...... -- System Admin --- Bellevue, WA --- uunet!pilchuck!dataio!-------\ uw-beaver!uw-entropy!dataio!-----shiloh!root shiloh --- Bellevue, WA --- (206) 562-1561(board) - (206) 747-5709(voice)
marc@Clik.QC.CA (Marc Boucher) (12/09/89)
In article <394@bilver.UUCP> bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes: /In article <935@zoom.Clik.QC.CA> marc@Clik.QC.CA (Marc Boucher) writes: / /> I have also been disappointed with your telephone support. I have been />stupidly asked many times for the "exact error message" with to the word />precision! so that the ignorant interactive employee could look it up in her />miracle problem solving database. / /Marc - I have several clients with small Unix/Xenix systems. I often get a /call and the conversation goes something like this. / /"I got an error message and now ...." / /"What did the error message say?" / /"Something about foo" / /I think a moment, and that sounds implausible, so I say. / /"Are you sure it didn't say bar" / /"Yeh, that might be it too." / /"When it happens again, write down the entire error message EXACTLY, and call /me back." / /I'm not a veterinarian. My patients have to tell me what's wrong. /To call an employee ignorant because he is trying to help you is way off base. / /Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill Calling that employee ignorant was based on a general impression caused by that employee being ignorant. :-) Her replies and too apparent passivity to my askings and explanations were too frustrating. All she could do at the end was make me spell to the letter precision the exact error message I was getting, without even proposing or wondering about the probable causes. She never called back in time, only 2 days later without a solution nor workaround, simply asking if everything was ok now. again, she was incompetent. I agree that sometimes support people have to deal with the problems being related uncleary to them and then need to pressure the customer to provide more detailed information. But it wasn't the case there. -- Marc Boucher, sys/netadm @ CLIK Telematique Inc - marc@clik.qc.ca 5144668932_home 5149337161_clik 5149332164_fax - Postmaster@clik.qc.ca
lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin) (12/10/89)
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >>Mine too. I used to accidentally kick the plug out all the time and >>it'd happily reboot and rebuild the free list. Never lost a file. >>This was with 2.0.2. > >Maybe I should re-try 2.02? How is your machine handling high speed >serial IO with bi-directional communications? Ours is fine. We tried a number of serial boards, including digicom's digiboard (8 & 16), computone's intelliport (8 & 16), chase (8), corollary (8-64), and a number of others. Ths digiboard seems to me the best of the ones we tried, although if the Specialix boards had worked in our (Acer) machine and if the supplier (not Specialix) had been mor helpful, things might have been different. If you are using a board (I know this ought to be obvious) make sure that the serial ports provided have enough lines to do proper modem flow control. The corollary 8x8, for example, does not, although it is otherwise excellent. Finally, one problem we had was that many versions of System V, including 386/ix 1.0.6, don't always drop DTR when you close a port. You have to open the port and close it again (sometimes several times) before it will do so. The same problem exists on Bull XPS100 machines. Uucp from the built-in ports, and also from the modem-control digiboard ports, seemed fine to me. Hope this helps. I'll be happy to be more specific about why we chose those particular serial ports by mail. Lee -- Liam R. Quin, Unixsys (UK) Ltd [note: not an employee of "sq" - a visitor!] lee@sq.com (Whilst visiting Canada from England, until Christmas) -- I think I'm going to come out at last... -- What? Admit you're not a fundamentalist Jew? They'll *crucify* you! :-)
kmoore@shiloh.UUCP (kirk moore) (12/11/89)
What was the problem.... I know Debbie pretty well and have been given excellant help from ISC support. I want to qualify that with I have alway written the error message down or keep a exact and detailed set of notes as to what I am doing. If Debbie was un-able to answer the question, she has put me on hold and gone to talk to Brain or Erick. As a consultant, I have many times have had to ask the client to write the error down. I am not a mind reader. When you call tech support, I feel that expecting them to read minds is a little absurd also. -- Kirk Moore --- Bellevue, WA --- uunet!pilchuck!dataio!-------\ uw-beaver!uw-entropy!dataio!-----shiloh!kmoore shiloh --- Bellevue, WA --- (206) 562-1561(board) - (206) 747-5709(voice)
lisbon@vpnet.UUCP (Gerry Swetsky) (12/11/89)
Not relevant, but would the person named buck who had questions about the dropout relay in use at vpnet please re-mail your request? My response bounced at sunloop. -- ============================================================================= | Help stamp out stupid .signature files! Gerry Swetsky | | | | Home (708)833-8122 Vpnet (708)833-8126 lisbon@vpnet.uucp | =============================================================================