Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!squid!dgreen
From: dgreen@squid.cs.ucla.edu (Dan R. Greening)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP-UX: unacceptable  [Was: root-over-nfs under HP-UX 6.5]
Message-ID: <29386@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 21 Nov 89 16:48:36 GMT
References: <7234@cs.utexas.edu> <SELIGMAN.89Nov20142005@farlow.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: dgreen@squid.cs.ucla.edu ()
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 53

seligman@CS.Stanford.EDU (Scott Seligman) writes:

>The NFS shipped with HP-UX is buggy in other ways too.  I've posted
>reports here but haven't gotten a response:  c'est la vie.  It's quite
>frustrating to hear that the people at HP are working on wonderful
>things like shared libraries, while the very basic networking software
>that they ship doesn't work.  My university is buying new equipment
>all the time.  Some voices can be heard saying "Consider HP!  Great
>stuff!"  But someone will always add "But what about their networking 
>software?"  What can I say?  

A similar experience occurred at UCLA, where we found the speed of a
hostname bind to be unacceptably slow.  Through various internal contacts
in HP Labs, we have occasionally been able to resolve problems by acquiring
"internal use only" software, such as the 6.01 named, and its corresponding
finger, rlogin, etc.

However, obtaining software via "who one knows" is just about the most
baroque and inefficient mechanism I can imagine.

Most of the packages that we've had trouble with are essentially public
domain: the name server, the name binder, X11 release 3.  The problem has
been that HP does not immediately throw out its mods to public domain code.  
Thus we are forced to try to repeat what HP has done internally, if we are to 
keep our HPs at the same level as other manufacturers.  Even the teeny
"pathalias" program supplied with HP-UX 6.5 doesn't work with the current
uumap format, and the last modification to pathalias was 1987.  Sure it's easy
to get a new version and compile it.  Why should we have to?

I repeat my call for HP to set up an anonymous FTP site.  I think one of
HPs first jobs should be to ensure that its modifications to the X11R4
server, to be released just after HPUX 7.0, will be on that anonymous FTP 
site as soon as possible.

HP apparently could not see its reputation slide down the tube, when it
failed to supply release 3 upgrades to the Xhp toolkit.  A dumb move, 
it irritated a number of system administrators--precisely the people one
doesn't want to irritate.  As a result, non-HP outsiders were forced to
update the Xhp toolkit--a long difficult process.  Yes, there is an Xhp
toolkit for release 3.  No, it wasn't upgraded by HP.  You can imagine
what that does for HP's software reputation.  Q: "Should I use the Xhp
toolkit?" A: No. HP might leave you in the lurch.

Finding that MIT's X11R3 server crashes on HPUX 6.5 (for me, at least),
gives me a similar feeling.  If you're willing to use 2 year old HP-blessed
software, HPUX is probably OK.

HPs software release policy is in bad need of reexamination.  Maybe it works
for corporate customers who don't use the latest and greatest, but it 
certainly has failed universities in fundamental ways.

Dan Greening       | NY 914-789-7861 | 12 Foster Court
dgreen@cs.ucla.edu | CA 213-825-2266 | Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520