Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!bellcore!iscp.Bellcore.COM!jona
From: jona@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Jon Alperin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: Making A request to IBM
Message-ID: <1991Apr1.135433.26762@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 1 Apr 91 13:54:33 GMT
References: <1991Mar19.152638.19508@athena.mit.edu> <3326@pensoft.UUCP> <1991Mar23.144908.9009@bellcore.bellcore.com> <3351@pensoft.UUCP> <670399929.14940@mindcraft.com>
Sender: usenet@bellcore.bellcore.com (Poster of News)
Reply-To: jona@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Jon Alperin)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Lines: 28

Ok....I understand the position of not tracking each single fix, as
well as distributing multiple fixes. However.....

1. When a person is designing a software product that executes under a
specific OS level, it is often unacceptable to tell a client to upgrade
an entire system  to fix an AIX bug which is underlying your code. It is
muchg simpler to convince them to "simply apply patch XXXX".

2. When supporting multiple users doing software developement, it is
often necessary to apply a patch to solve a single users problem. However,
when multiple fixes are provided in a patch, its hard to tell users what has been
fixed or upgraded.

3. If IBM is going to provide multiple fixes, then they should be just that...
fixes. No new code should be in those non-mandatory releases. I am not sure
if IBM is doing this, but I figured that I would stay up here on the soapbox
just a little longer.


-- 
Jon Alperin
Bell Communications Research

---> Internet: jona@iscp.bellcore.com
---> Voicenet: (908) 699-8674
---> UUNET: uunet!bcr!jona

* All opinions and stupid questions are my own *