Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpfcso!cunniff
From: cunniff@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ross Cunniff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP Customer Support
Message-ID: <7370049@hpfcso.HP.COM>
Date: 1 Dec 89 16:04:48 GMT
References: <221@cmic.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Lines: 34

I'm just a compiler hacker, but off the top of my head I can
think of several reasons why distributing patches via USENET
is a bad idea:


	1. The other companies who help pay for USENET would
	   not be happy to find that they're paying for HP
	   software distribution

	2. There is no way to ensure that a patch actually
	   came from HP; this seems like an incredibly obvious
	   way for someone to distribute a trojan horse

	3. It is possible (nay, probable) that patches could
	   become corrupt during transmission; witness the
	   number of requests for reposts of part N of the
	   latest neat comp.sources.thing.

You'll notice that none of IBM, DEC, Sun, Apple, or HP distribute
software via the net.  I'll bet the above reasons are a partial
explanation.

Now, I don't disagree at all that it might be appropriate for HP
to figure out some sort of online notification about software
patches; I've heard rumors (RUMORS, mind you) that something like
that is in the works.

				Ross Cunniff
				Hewlett-Packard Colorado Language Lab
				...{ucbvax,hplabs}!hpfcla!cunniff
				cunniff%hpfcrt@hplabs.HP.COM

DISCLAIMER: HP pays me to write compilers, not to post opinions like
this to the net.