Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!oliveb!sun!babelfish!plocher
From: plocher%babelfish@Sun.COM (John Plocher)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Microport Status
Message-ID: <96729@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 30 Mar 89 22:02:54 GMT
References: <315@uport.UUCP> <96473@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <6385@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: plocher@sun.COM (John Plocher)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 34

In article <6385@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>So, now that you can speak freely, what really was the problem at
>Microport?

	The number 1 problem was simply too much work for too few people.

	There was no support from upper management to hire more people, so
	the engineering was done by a staff of 4 or 5:

		1 person for 286 
		1 person for Dos-Merge (Also involved with support)
		1 person for 386
		and 1 (or 2 at times) for misc projects and support

	There were 6 people in the support group, of which one also ran the 
	Merge project and another was one of the "floating engineers"

>Why were there so many unfixed bugs in Microport System V/AT?

	Isn't it obvious now ? ...

>As others have asked, will Microport release source to its drivers, so
>others can fix bugs?

	I wouldn't think so; they are a "valuable" asset and can/could be
	sold to pay creditors.  Remember, Microport is still in business,
	but I am no longer there.

	I tried to obtain the legal rights to Microport's driver source
	before I left, but because of SEC regulations about insider trading
	I would have had to pay "full asset value" for them, and I didn't
	have the ~$250K that it would have taken. :-(

	John Plocher