Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!internet!fouts@orville (Martin Fouts)
From: fouts@orville (Martin Fouts)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re:  Unix Bugs vs. VMS bugs
Message-ID: <5944@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 20-Nov-84 12:51:24 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.5944
Posted: Tue Nov 20 12:51:24 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 06:26:17 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 33


     You are correct.  This is a good version of standard vendor
support.  I fought with DEC over it, back when they were a small
company and won.  At that time we got good vendor support.  Now they
are too large to be responsive to small companies and they give me the
same degree of support.

     You are also correct about Berkeley.  I never intended to imply
that they should do software maintenance, that isn't the function of a
research organization.

     However, just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean that's
the way is should remain.  I still believe that there is a Better Way,
and one of these days we are going to find it.  Networks like USENET
and the ARPANET which allow us to exchange ideas and bug fixes are a
start, but we still have a long way to go:

     1) Berkeley shouldn't be responsible for supporting their
software, but as long as its going to be used heavily, there ought to
be some way to sprout a central `fix control` agency.  The MT XINU bug
list is a start, but. . .

     2) Whomever owns the trademark this week should be more responsive
to its user community.

     3) There should be some kind of movement towards a center.  There
are too many versions of Unix, each with only partial functionallity.
The ANSI standards efforts, and /usr/group are heading that way,
but. . .

     4) Computer users should be computer users NOT computer fixers.

----------