Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!uunet.uu.net!rick
From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent
Subject: Re: obsolete Sequent software
Summary: rigor mortis is also rock solid
Message-ID: <124108@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 25 Feb 91 21:31:38 GMT
References: <1991Feb16.000101.4149@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <6055@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Sender: usenet@uunet.UU.NET
Lines: 55
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net

In article <6055@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch) writes:
> In comp.sys.sequent, gmt@cs.arizona.edu (Gregg Townsend) writes:
> >I have to second R. B. Jim's comments about Sequent software.  It's pitiful.
> 
> I'm real tired of seeing this stuff.  I happen to thing that Sequent
> has done a great job on software.  I agree, it's not leading edge stuff,
> but it works, and it provides all the features I need.
> 
> >I have been passing on these complaints to everyone who asks how we like our
> >Sequent.  Rock-solid hardware, pathetic software.
> 
> I word it this way:
> 	   Rock-solid hardware, Rock-solid software.

Not only is it not leading edge, its so far behind the edge that you
can't even see wherethe edge is. It doesnt work reliably. It does not
provide the features I need. As far as I know, they're all software
problems. If you put a lot of effort into it, you can usually beat
the system into doing what you want. Its ashame that you have
to doi so much unnecessary work.

Given the complete system hangs (as in push the "reset button to
"continue" running) we've been experiencing several times per week,
"rock solid" would indeed describe the system performance. But then you
really can't do much computing with a solid rock, can you?

If we were to measure the downtime of our 1 Sequent against the
downtime of our dozen Suns conbined,  the Sequent downtime would be an
order of magnitude higher. I long for the ability of running "unstable"
Sun software. Question: Which is better? 1) "buggy" Sun lock managers
for NFS that don't work 1% of the time or 2) "non-existant" but 
rock solid Sequent lock managers?

The fact that they are putting effort into System V Release THREE says
a lot about the software of this company. Not content with shipping
obsolete and broken Berkeley variants, they want to expand their market
share by shipping obsolete and broken ATT variants at the same time
they're abandoning their users of the obsolete Berkeley variants (Did
you notice that their PTX abomination is the only OS available on the
new S16? Not even a compatibility library. If you used sockets, expect
to rewrite everything in TLI. [of course this library will be provided
"someday"])

---rick

p.s. Sequent's got the same security bugs with /bin/mail you're nagging
sun about. Sun at least made the effort to notify their customers.

I'm already running fixed Sun binaries. With luck, I'll see it fixed in
Dynix 3.2 which is probably due out in mid 1994 (If it doesnt slip...)

(Ever notice that the Dynix release schedule takes longer and slips
more times than the BSD release schedule? I suppose its another attempt
at Berkeley compatibility even if the customers dont want that level of
compatibility...)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com