Xref: utzoo comp.sys.dec:3390 comp.os.vms:26719
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!minerva!kassover
From: kassover@minerva.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec,comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Auto-trol support for VMS
Message-ID: <8554@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 14 Jun 90 15:25:16 GMT
References: <1227@auto-trol.UUCP>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Followup-To: comp.sys.dec
Distribution: usa
Organization: Aule-Tek, Inc.
Lines: 30

In article <1227@auto-trol.UUCP> garhow@auto-trol.COM () writes:
...
[explanation of decision not to support VMS deleted]
>
>In summary, we are not trying to "force" UNIX on anyone. We don't create
>industry trends, we are driven by them the same as everyone else. We deliver
>products in the environments that the marketplace dictates. The issue is
>not whether VMS is better or worse than UNIX but whether it is economically
>feasible to suppport it with our product set.

Well said.

I have no affiliation with Auto-trol Technology of any sort, nor,
to the best of my knowledge, have I used it's products.

But I dare say that users of those products for the purposes for
which they are intended (and maybe others) really don't care what
operating system, if any, runs in the box(es) attached to their
output device.

If such users need to have access to VMS, or Unix, such service
can be provided much more effectively through a different set of boxes.


On the other hand, I don't have to put up the money to buy
Auto-trol boxes when I already have some perfectly good VMS boxes.
--
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com	    sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@crd.ge.com			F. Collins