NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/unix/sysv386/13892

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-01 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!utgpu!attcan!telly!evan
From: [e-mail] (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Vendors of Intel UNIX (was Re: setting UUCP g protocol...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:12:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Snyder) writes:

>Consensys should check the product out before shipping.  Their name
>goes on the product -- just like USL.  Dell has taken the time to check
>the product, and if something doesn't work -- they fix it.  Period
>The finger pointing is bull.  For ESIX to say, it's USL's fault and
>not fix something is wrong.

It's not an excuse not to work on something. I'm answering your original
complaint that all Intel UNIX versions were getting a bad name because
they haven't all fixed every bug that USL shipped them. If USL ships
buggy code to its resellers, then the code deserves a bad name, even if
one reseller tries to clean up some of the bugs on non-standard ways
that could break on later revisions to the original code.

Fact is, lots of people are running their ESIXs and Microports and MSTs
and Consensys just fine. The base product ain't *that* bad, and just
improved a bunch with 4.0.4...

>Dell supports other vendors products -- ET4000 boards, Computone boards,
>Equinox (I think), etc -- all are supported.

How nice. Dell's list of supported hardware is half a page. ESIX's is six.
I've seen them both. The point, as you state it, is one of *responsibility*;
putting down in paper all the pieces of hardware (including motherboards) that
you're willing to stand behind and commit to fix if broken. That takes effort.

(PS: For products like Equinox and Computone, how does Dell's support go
beyond testing this stuff in their systems? Will they commit to fix bugs
in the Computone-supplied drivers? Otherwise, in this respect their
support is no better -- and no worse -- than any other R4 vendor.)

>>Back to Larry's point. He's tired of Intel UNIX getting a bad rep
>>because, in his opinion, all of the distributors of the code except for
>>his present favourite are screwing it up.
>
>>Well, to me, fixing bugs is not added value. It's basic value.
>
>But Dell has added value to the product -- for example, they ship
>a modified release of X386 specifically for Dell with support for a
>slew of configurations.  They've written various utilities to
>enhance the administration.  They have taken the time to add the popular
>PDS/GNU software to make the installation well rounded - thus saving
>the SA the time of hunting down this and that.

And this, indeed, is what I'd call added value. Other companies add
value in other ways. It does not negate my original point in that if the
Intel UNIX companies *really* wanted to clean up their act, they'd work
together on the UNIX bugs, and differetiate themselves by value added
elements like what you've mentioned above.

It's more important than ever that the vendors like Dell, ESIX,
Microport and even Consensys get together to share information about
fixing bugs, and compete on matters of added value. If they don't then
they're all just killing time until Univel wipes them out.

--
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         [e-mail] / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / [phone]
   "This Used To Be My Playground" -- Madonna, singing about mens' washrooms