Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!aunro!edm!geoff
From: geoff@edm.uucp (Geoff Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: Making A request to IBM (Was: Re: How does one compile to assembly?)
Message-ID: <1991Mar22.183550.30160@edm.uucp>
Date: 22 Mar 91 18:35:50 GMT
References: <1296@dkunix9.dk.oracle.com> <1991Mar15.123532.8036@odi.com> <3299@pensoft.UUCP>
Organization: Unexsys Systems Inc
Lines: 29

In article <3299@pensoft.UUCP> robin@pensoft.UUCP (Robin Wilson) writes:
>In article <1991Mar15.123532.8036@odi.com> benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes:
>>Further, the developer can decide that your problem, while a bug, is a
>>"permanent restriction," (i.e., too hard to fix) and decline to fix
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>it, ever. This is what happened to me when I reported that AIX dbx,
>>unlike any other, can't trace the stack below a sigaction-established
>>SIGSEGV handler.
>
>Well, here is the REAL story from someone who works inside of the system.

	Funny how the real story from the inside is not the real story 
from the outside. My normal sequence is phone IBM software (please note
this is Canada so your mileage may vary :-) ) support hotline. I'm then 
told that because it's an RS/6000 I have to phone the hardware support
line even though it is a software problem. 
	I then get a call back from someone at IBM's national support 
center.  They argue with me if UNIX is or is not supposed to act this
way and then say they will take it up with higher powers. 
	A week to two weeks later I phone them and requeue the call.
They finally phone back and say well we have decided it is a problem
and we'll get back to you.

Geoff Coleman

P.s. This is not meant as a slight at anyone at IBM Canada support.
     I believe they are doing the best job they can given a lack of
     background UNIX knowledge, head count to wade through all of
     the problems, etc.