Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!itkin
From: itkin@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Follow-up to: Problems with Unify (or: "This is support!?")
Message-ID: <3591@cup.portal.com>
Date: 1 Mar 88 05:52:57 GMT
References: <249@tsc3b21.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 66
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.3249


>	I suppose that our problem has been solved, but I'd like
>to suggest a marketing strategy for Unify:  don't exagerate the
>abilities of your product.  Of such makings are legal battles made.
>And to the rest of the continent:  "You's pays your money, and you's
>takes your chances."
>-----
>Frank (crash) Edwards		...!codas!usfvax2!{pdn,jc3b21}!tsc3b21!crash
>TSC in Palm Harbor, FL		Phone:  (813) 785-0583  (voice)

I've been following both Frank's and Mike's adventures in Unify support
(or lack thereof).  I've waited for Frank's latest (maybe last) above so
that I'd have all the information that he was going to post before
responding.

First, congratulations to Frank on having his problem resolved, albeit
with great delay and frustration.  Sometimes you just have to hang on
until the tiger drops.

Second (and more)...

I've been working both with Unify Corporation (since they were NAT) and
Unify and ACCELL for over five years.  I can comfortably say that I've
been through experiences similar, if not identical, to most of the Unify
customers there are.  I've also delved into the source code (legally of
course) and made some modifications to it.  I've been through the
evolution of their support organization (it used to be one of the
cofounders, interrupting his engineering work) and the corporation.  I
mention all of this not to brag or bore, but to establish (I hope) some
credibility.

I understand Frank's frustration.  I must say, however, that Unify
deserves a bit of defense.  Their product DOES live up to its
advertising.  Unfortunately what Frank ran into is a limit NOT in the
software but in the released version of the data dictionary (unify.db).
Unify DOES support 255 relations (tables) and 255 fields per table.  I
know - I've looked at the code and in fact developed applications that
pushed those limits.  The problem is this:  unify.db is a Unify database
and must have expected counts set just as other databases do.  At some
point, Unify decided to set the expected counts for tables and fields at
an arbitrary number (arbitrary to those of us who were not there).  The
fix for Frank's problem (and Mike's), as they mentioned, is to
reconfigure unify.db (or have Unify do so).  Unify finally twigged to
this and provided the capability in the released product.  Why, you ask,
didn't they just size it to full capacity initially?  Probably
considerations for space and performance.  Unfortunately, I do not know
the exact reason (yes, I've dinged them about it too).

As for the support person to whom Frank spoke who advised him that Unify
would only support 128 tables...  Some people don't read everything or
remember everything.  As I said, I KNOW that Unify lives up to its
advertising and can therefore only surmise that the support technician
was new with Unify and wasn't sure of his facts.

I'm also sorry that Frank was compelled to upgrade to Unify 4.0.  While
I heartily recommend doing so, no customer should be forced to do so in
order to get what they thought they'd paid for.  Again, I believe this
to be inexperience on the part of the support technician.  I had the
problem corrected for me as early as Unify 3.1, so I know that they had
the capability to correct the problem before 4.0.

Well, enough Unify boosting for tonight.  Let me just close be saying
that I've had great success working with Unify and Unify Corporation.
It is a good company and good product and I recommend both unreservedly.

Steven List
(formerly itkin@bene.UUCP, now itkin@cup.portal.com, next...)