Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!ramoth.esd.sgi.com!msc
From: msc@ramoth.esd.sgi.com (Mark Callow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: SGI UPGRADES/MAINTENANCE MONOPOLY
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.202431.4760@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 12 Apr 91 20:24:31 GMT
References: <1554@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> <1991Apr8.154643.29535@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Apr9.162537.711@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1991Apr9.161250.29571@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Reply-To: msc@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Entry Systems Division
Lines: 19

In article <1991Apr9.161250.29571@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) writes:
|> I hope the straight story on this emerges from this thread.  It's not
|> only a theoretical issue, but will influence some significant purchasing
|> decisions.  (Course I'm not going to take anything posted here as
|> the absolute and final truth....)
|> 

Historically our policy has been to provide maintenance to systems with
added 3rd party peripherals or memory.  This maintenance would be under
our normal maintenance agreements.  When a problem occurred on such a
system we required that all 3rd party components be removed and the problem
verified to still exist before we would dispatch a PSE to the site.

I am not aware of any recent changes in policy. The person who could give
the definitive answer to this forum is currently on sabbatical.
-- 
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@ramoth.sgi.com, ...{ames,decwrl}!sgi!msc
"Spirits of genius are always opposed by mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein