Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!logitek!grep!frank From: frank@grep.co.uk (Frank Wales) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: Questions about HPUX 8.0, X11R4, HP policy Keywords: HPUX 8.0 help X11R4 gripe Message-ID: <1990Dec17.171742.1309@grep.co.uk> Date: 17 Dec 90 17:17:42 GMT References: <1990Dec13.100152@dali.gatech.edu> Reply-To: frank@grep.co.uk (Frank Wales) Organization: Grep Limited, LEEDS, UK Lines: 111 [Disclaimer: I am not, and never have been, an employee of HP, just a long-time satified customer, blah-blah-blah.] In article <1990Dec13.100152@dali.gatech.edu> mikeg@dali.gatech.edu (Mike Gourlay) writes: > I hear that HPUX 8.0 will be shipped out in June or July. >I also hear that X11R4 will be send with it. That is, if you have >`software support.' > > What if you don't have software support? [Gripes about >HP policy left for later.] Will someone please make a tar file of the >distribution tape, and put it somewhere? Or send the tar file to those >of us who have no support from HP? What a good idea. But why stop with HP? Why not make copies of all the common OSs from all vendors and put them somewhere public? Why bother actually paying for them at all? After all, they cost nothing to develop, duplicate and distribute, right? > Why does HP consider fixing their software bugs (called an update >of the OS) something for which you have to pay big money for a >support contract? Most software updates include new commands, new facilities and performance or compatibility improvements which are worth actually paying for. And remember that much of the code in HP-UX wasn't actually written by HP at all. When was the last time you had to debug a two million line package you didn't write? >It is unfair. No, it isn't. Name any commercial vendor who will provide on-going support and updates completely free of charge. >If you pay for UNIX, you should get UNIX, and not have to pay >incrementally to have HP give you UNIX over a period of time. Huh? I wasn't aware that I was getting HP-UX on the installment plan. UNIX is a moving target from any vendor, which is one reason why software updates exist and cost money. >It isn't as if the machine was inexpensive up front. I find HP machines quite competitive for price/performance, especially when cost of ownership and reliability are considered. >It isn't as if HPUX is not the most incompatible port of UNIX and >X on the planet. It doesn't sound like you've ported much to HP-UX that wasn't Sun or VAX dependent. It's very accommodating of foreign software. >It most certainly is NOT that new versions of the OS are improvements >to UNIX. The new versions are bug fixes. That is not right. You are correct; the statements preceding "That is not right" are not right. How many new versions have you seen? How many other vendors' versions of UNIX have you seen? How do you determine whose is better? > X is in the public domain. No, it isn't. It's freely distributable within certain constraints. >HP makes so called `inhancements' >(read "incompatible frilly fluff") to it and sells it for money. Sun, AT&T, DEC, and most other workstation vendors also make enhancements. Is everyone evil? >X should be compilable from the distribution >at MIT, and so capable people should be able to compile X11R4 without >waiting for the newest distribution from HP. Has anyone done that? You said earlier that they had. Besides, how long do you think it takes to test something the size of X, especially when you didn't write it? How long does it take to distribute zillions of copies of it? Do you think HP are just dawdling because they feel like it? >My local rep blaimed it on inherent incompatibilities in UNIX. WHAT?!?!?!!? >That's ridiculous. Inherent incompatibilities in UNIX? No such thing. See Configure by Larry Wall for some idea of the nonexistent incompatibilities between different UNIX versions. Read comp.unix.* and comp.lang.c for some more. >Between SYSV and BSD, okay. Which one of these isn't UNIX, since obviously they can't both be (UNIX isn't incompatible with itself, after all)? >Between _either_ BSD or SYSV and HPUX, I see incompatibility >(or is it incompetence?) Ahem. HP-UX is one of the most reliable UNIX versions I know of. It got that way because HP actually debug the thing before they ship it, unlike certain other workstation vendors I could mention. Their implementation of some things is also cleaner (e.g., context-dependent files versus mutant symlink file systems from Hell). Maybe you're not prepared to pay for reliability, and want Untested Creeping Features (tm) instead. Maybe that puts you in the minority of HP's customers. >That, according to her, is why WE HAVE TO PAY HP TO GIVE US PUBLIC >DOMAIN SOFTWARE AND BUG FIXES TO THEIR WEIRD, BUGGY, INCOMPLETE UNIX >PORT AND SPECIAL VERSION OF X. For some reason, the phrase "eat my shorts" comes to mind. It always seems to happen when someone's BIFF key gets stuck down. Can't imagine why. -- Frank Wales, Grep Limited, [frank@grep.co.uk<->uunet!grep!frank] Kirkfields Business Centre, Kirk Lane, LEEDS, UK, LS19 7LX. (+44) 532 500303