Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!baroque.Stanford.EDU!jim From: jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi Subject: Re: wondering when/whether our 3.3.2 will arrive ... Message-ID: Date: 24 May 91 14:27:49 GMT References: <1991May17.093936.28501@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> <1991May17.143713.10728@mmm.serc.3m.com> <1991May17.194546.8546@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1991May24.140153.12340@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 23 In-Reply-To: sysmark@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca's message of 24 May 91 14:01:53 GMT There are always bugs to be fixed. But since the decision to produce a release is entirely at SGI's discretion, it's hard to complain too much when you don't receive one. Most maintenance contracts leave it entirely up to the vendor to decide if and when updates are distributed. For all I know, 3.3.2 might only fix some problem with HyperChannels to Crays! (But I doubt it.) It may be dubious customer relations to tell someone that after paying many $K for support, that SGI won't send out a 3.3.2 tape even after one asks for it, but SGI is within bounds on not sending it to everyone. However, I agree that if SGI deemed the fixes important enough to make a subrelease, I'd at least like to see a list of the bugs it addresses and be given the opportunity to request it. That would still save SGI lots of distribution costs and would protect those customers who believe they might be affected. Bugs can be like minefields for developers. Pop! You lose an hour. Kabooom! A month blasted off. IRIX is pretty good really, only an occasional pop. But if deactivation kits are too expensive, a map would still be nice. ;-} Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics Durand 012 Stanford University FAX: (415) 725-3377 (jim@KAOS.stanford.edu) Work: (415) 723-9127