Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!squid!dgreen
From: dgreen@squid.cs.ucla.edu (Dan R. Greening)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP Customer Support
Message-ID: <29621@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 30 Nov 89 22:49:09 GMT
References: <221@cmic.UUCP>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: dgreen@cs.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 67

In article <221@cmic.UUCP>, garvey@cmic.UUCP (Joe Garvey) writes:

> Why does HP resist implementing a time proven system for handling questions,
> problems, fixes.... the net has been doing this for years. It costs next
> to nothing to implement ...
> At the very least, the postings from HP not to use the net as a
> means of solving problems with HP ought to cease, and a formal mechanism
> for accepting bugs this way should be put in place. The net is a large,
> popular, productive tool. It's time HP acknowledges that fact.
> 
> HP has always succeeded because it innovates. It's time to innovate in
> customer service.

I can't agree more with this.  USENET, uucp, and the internet, are
major software distribution mechanisms for software.  Just look at the
flood of stuff in comp.sources.*, the 6-8 anonymous FTP sites I use
all the time, etc.

But on the other hand, at UCLA I don't even have convenient access to
a dial-out phone.  Therefore, it is quite bothersome for me to contact
an S.E. in any other way than e-mail.

UCLA's machines, like most other university machines, have all sorts
of new software running.  They are managed by graduate students.  Yes,
we often diagnose and report difficult problems.  That should come as
no surprise: we are on the frontlines.  It seems like HP should
encourage our help, and should provide what it can to support us,
rather than admonishing us not to use convenient reporting mechanisms
(USENET) or telling us HP cannot distribute patches via USENET because
of so-called "legal" problems.

Easy to dispel the so-called "legal" argument:  
a. If HP could be sued for distributing an incorrect patch via USENET,
   HP could be sued for distributing an incorrect patch via any other
   means.
b. If HP *fails* to distribute patches to everyone via USENET or some
   other convenient mechanism, it DOES NOT satisfy the customer.
   Advanced customers (like UCLA) discover they can't run X11R3 on
   HPUX 6.5.  What do they do?  Either 1) give up and make students
   run X11R2.  The students discover they can't compile their X11R3
   stuff on the HP, so they use Suns or IBM RTs or SparcStations or
   whatever.  Or 2) They decide that they are better off dealing with
   a more free-wheeling hardware company.  Or 3) They get MtXinu 
   Unix 4.3 and say "to heck with HPUX".  Or 4) They scream about it
   in USENET.  How can any of these help HP?  They can't.  
c. To completely protect its legal butt, HP (or any company) should not
   sell software, or anything for that matter.  If you feel like you
   have to sell software, sell something tried-and-true... like, say,
   FORTRAN.  No patches.  No mess.
d. Any patch distributed on USENET could be accompanied by a
   disclaimer, as is found on all MIT sources, etc.

I *like* HP equipment, by the way.  It is extremely reliable.  And HP
people have treated me well.  However, I do believe a fundamental
policy change should go into effect: patches should be posted in
"comp.sys.hp", customers should be encouraged to use USENET or some
other e-mail mechanism to report bugs, HP revised sources of public
domain software should be made available on anonymous FTP sites, there
should be someone from customer service assigned to monitor and
transcribe all bugs reported here.

Any decent company must go where the customers live.  And for advanced
customers, like universities and major labs, the customers live on
USENET.  To ignore that fundamental fact is to lose market share.

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