Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bloom-beacon!spdcc!dyer From: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt Subject: Re: IBM Support Structure Message-ID: <257@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> Date: 15 Oct 89 17:56:38 GMT References: <8843@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <216@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> <1989Oct14.214720.5145@agate.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA Lines: 26 In article <1989Oct14.214720.5145@agate.berkeley.edu> ibmjb@garnet.berkeley.edu writes: >Obviously IBM customers aren't the problem - we're learning the unix business >very fast in IBM. But if you don't complain, some of the problems won't get >fixed. So who's not complaining? :-) The issue really is one of exhaustion in *trying* to deal with a large, seemingly monolithic organization when it's not being responsive. That was my experience when trying to order an RT upgrade last year. Whom you complain to (other than comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt) when the branch isn't returning calls so that you can order the damn thing, wasn't (and still isn't) clear. It appears that quite a few IBM folks read this group, and complaints here seem to magically get forwarded to people who can solve them. I'm sure this is not optimal for any support structure, and I'd prefer to go thru channels, but after a while, you use what works. For the record, I'm as happy as a clam right now--what I have works. Everyhting I've been saying has been in reference to my interactions with the branch office last year. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu