Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!mintaka!mit-eddie!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Key-toggle problem ISC 386/ix 2.0.2 with VP/ix Summary: But support does not guarantee anything! Keywords: Priority Bug Message-ID: <1494@aber-cs.UUCP> Date: 28 Nov 89 20:18:53 GMT Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth (Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal) Lines: 108 In article <294@minnie.UUCP> walp@hdchq.UUCP (David E. Walp) writes: > In article pcg@emerald.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > > > >If I were your CEO I would fire you straight away. If your > >company demands the best from you, why are you using any software > >product that is explicitly described as not guaranteed fit for [ ... ] > I'm sorry but working under the "no risk" umbrella that you have portrayed > would be like working in the dark ages. Any one want to go back to CPM? > _ > Mark Hilliard N2HHR > rutgers!rochester!kodak!gizzmo!mark Executives do take risks, they can, as I said, decide to run the risk of using for critical applications software whose only guarantee is that the floppies will be exchanged if found defective within N months. They want to *know*, though, that such is the case, because they want to know that if things do not work, the supplier is under *no obligation* to support them or to pay up or to make things good. CEOs want to be able to estimate the size of the risk they take, and if suppliers take themselves out of the picture, this changes the amount of risk considerably. If the CEO expects things to work, and the supplier to solve problems, then the CEO is badly misinformed as to the representations made by the supplier, and is betting good company money on the wrong assumptions. CEOs hate to find out that their subordinates withold such critical risk assessement information from them. Hope your CEO does not find out, or that he has jolly good humour (hahahaha! so we can get a new set of floppies for our thousands dollars! hahahaha!). I am the "CEO" in question (actually 2nd in command) and need to set some of this straight. [ ... ] Regarding the keyboard toggling problem with VP/ix. What has gotten lost is that the problem is occurring as often as every second or third key- stroke!! Try unplugging your keyboard on every third key hit!! I do not understand how ISC can seriously believe that we can wait until January for this bug fix!! ISC is in the clear, IMNHO; they have warned you in capital letters that you should have no expectation as to the functionality of the product in general, and that all risk as to performance is with you; they also, quite honestly and helpfully, publish a list of equipment that they reckon has a better chance of being satisfactory to you (because it was to them), without guaranteeing anything of course. ISC seriously believe what they write in their contracts, I can imagine. I can also guess that they also seriously believe that they cannot possibly support any and every glitchy keyboard you can find out there. So you are on your own, and if the keyboard/computer is not on ISC's "suggested" list, you are doubly so. If you believe otherwise, then you are engaging in wishful thinking. We have a pretty serious investment in ISC products Again and again I must insist that you have a pretty serious investment in ISC *floppies*; as to the software, you have it on faith and goodwill alone. As to the hardware (which I think is the real culprit here) I very much doubt that anybody ever made any representation as to it working with Unix or MSDOS or ISC (and have you noticed how much hardware in the PC world today comes without serial numbers or markings of any sort, including company names and country of origin?). If you don't dig such crucial concepts, your business decision taking process is somewhat optimistic. and are trying to remain in the UNIX fold, but when the product (VP/ix) goes backwards from release to release it is very difficult to maintain the faith. Is there anyone out there who is comfortable with waiting for three months for a priority one bug fix ??!! If you look at the tipical sw support contract, and I guess that ISC is tipical, the supplier undertakes, in exchange for a fat fee, to *accept* your bug reports, not to *act* on them (a support contract usually gives you only the right to report bugs -- no support contract, and you cannot report bugs :->). IMNHO, executives should read the contracts from their suppliers, and take them seriously indeed. It is getting more difficult to get the CEO and the DOS-only camp to accept the continuing delays in integrating the UNIX products into our evolving "enterprise wide" network along-side 3-Com and Novell. You should have no expectations whatsoever as to the performance of ISC Unix, but this is veryly true as well for MSDOS or any MSDOS product. The arguments you can use with your CEO and the MSDOS only camp is to point out that MS has repeatedly released extremely buggy and unreliable MSDOS versions (3.1? 4.0?), and that they have total control of the thing, and that suppliers in the MSDOS arena must invest considerable time and money and expertise just in tracking MS vagaries, undocumented interfaces, etc... The UNIX camp is more of a level playing field, there are neutral standards, and puslished, reliable interfaces, and choice of suppliers, and if you really want it, source code availability, and these things matter to reliability and your customers. As long as you know that you are on your own, and your CEO knows what kind of risks this entails, and is prepared to live with them (as he should, IMNHO), that's good. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk