Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!jade!ucbvax!MITRE.ARPA!mckee
From: mckee@MITRE.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Networks & vendor upgrades/fixes
Message-ID: <8711201833.AA25671@mitre.arpa>
Date: Fri, 20-Nov-87 13:33:20 EST
Article-I.D.: mitre.8711201833.AA25671
Posted: Fri Nov 20 13:33:20 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Nov-87 17:23:40 EST
References: <284985.871113.JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Washington, D.C.
Lines: 27

In your note to nowicki@sun.com you described the difficulty of
installing a new release and concluded with:

>All of which is why many organizations which are setting up large networks
>want homogenous hardware, rigid version control, and source code.  Perhaps
>the manufacturers should put on their thinking caps...

I would like to understand the underlying rationale for your
recommendations concerning source code, rigid version control, and
homogenous hardware.  I offer my speculations below and would like 
you to confirm/revise.

Source Code: So that an organization can fix/improve the code
themselves, or by a third party, and not have to depend on the original
vendor.  Does your recommendation change if software maintenance is in
effect?

Rigid Version Control: This has more to do with the organization's
network than with vendors.  The organization doesn't want two different
versions of the same process to be in use. 

Homogenous Hardware: This one troubles me - I would like to think that
through the use of standard protocols an organization could achieve
interoperability among different hardware suites.  What is your view of
the matter?

Regards - Craig