Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: AT&T C++ 2.0/1 and Universities
Message-ID: <4322@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 10 Mar 91 02:12:05 GMT
References: <11659@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 34

In article <11659@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> whitcomb@vivaldi.Berkeley.EDU (Gregg Whitcomb) writes:
+I'm interested in finding out if other universities have
+been able to obtain C++ 2.0 or 2.1.  For some reason or another,
+our efforts in the last 7 months to obtain the upgrade from 1.2
+have failed.  It is unclear whether we are experiencing problems
+common to other universities or if this is a UC specific issue.
+
+In addition to hearing from those who have been able to obtain
+2.0/2.1, I'd also be interested in hearing any AT&T problems which
+other universities have experienced in obtaining the software.
+
+Your replies are much appreciated,

When I was at UC Irvine (not that long ago) we had major major MAJOR
problems getting AT&T to actually *send* the tape for cfront 2.0.

We had to call them and hassle them several times before we actually
got them to ship the tape.  This was despite the fact that they had
either the check or a valid P.O. (I forget which) in their hot little
hands already.

I don't think that we ever found out what the problem was exactly at
the time, but I do recall being suspicious about the fact that (as I knew
full well) numerous *companies* (who had ponied up $20,000) had tapes
in their hands *months* before we (at the University, who only paid some
pitance like $800 or something) finally got our tape.  Now maybe that was
just a coincidence, but the report from Berkeley would seem to lead to
a different conclusion.  I mean 7 months *is* a long time to wait!

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// New motto:  If it ain't broke, try using a bigger hammer.