Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!portal!motcad!jtc
From: jtc@motcad.portal.com (J.T. Conklin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Vendor Bug Reporting Policy (was Re: SECURITY BUG IN INTERACTIVE UNIX SYSV386)
Keywords: BAD BUG
Message-ID: <1991Feb19.002252.15194@motcad.portal.com>
Date: 19 Feb 91 00:22:52 GMT
References: <1991Feb18.042427.9434@kithrup.COM> <3227@sixhub.UUCP> <1991Feb18.175533.12275@kithrup.COM>
Organization: Computer Signal Corp., San Ramon, California
Lines: 19

In article <1991Feb18.175533.12275@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>SCO managed to get it working before their first release; AT&T and Dell
>managed to get it "fixed" for their second release.  All without having to
>redesign an enormous program written entirely in assembly.  Or would you
>rather that the fpu emulator have more bugs introduced?

Was the existance of this bug passed up the chain of command to AT&T and 
then distributed to all other sysv386 vendors, or did SCO, Dell, and AT&T
keep it to themselves.  If so, I consider SCO, Dell, and AT&T as much at
fault as ISC, ESIX, Bell Tech, and Microport.

Seriously, are bug reports/fixes passed back to AT&T or do vendors have
some sort of bogus attitude that "bug fixes are propritary as they give
us an edge over our competition."

	--jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin    jtc@motcad.portal.com, ...!portal!motcad!jtc