Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:6083 unix-pc.uucp:100 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!elroy!gryphon!denwa!jimmy From: jimmy@denwa.uucp (Jim Gottlieb) Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.uucp Subject: Re: Trailblazer Setup for HDB <--[NO! NO! NO!] for the UNIX PC Summary: UNIX PC HDB would need to be fixed to be sold Message-ID: <288@denwa.uucp> Date: 11 Apr 89 02:44:09 GMT References: <175@orac.pgh.pa.us> <649@icus.islp.ny.us> <290@greek.UUCP> <950@rush.howp.com> Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles Lines: 29 In article <950@rush.howp.com>, bob@rush.howp.com (Bob Ames) writes: > OK, everybody. If we want HDB, let's all get together and send a > joint letter to AT&T saying that we'll each pay $x for the binaries. > > How/Why should we be stuck > with the stock software when it would be so easy for them to > release the good stufff. Especially since the software has already > been written and runs quite adequately. The problem as I see it is that while the HDB for the UNIX PC is "adequate" (and definitely better than the stock stuff), it still has a major bug that would need to be fixed before it could be sold, and AT&T doesn't want to bother. This bug results in it thinking that all calls on the OBM reach carrier. On uucp calls this means that a busy or no-answer condition will result in it sitting there until it times out on login, thus making it impossible to specify an alternate number to dial by means of a second entry for that system in the Systems file. Likewise, cu(1) calls through the OBM will get you a "Connected" message, and wreak havoc on scripts that try to use cu. I don't think AT&T minds us having HDB, since it is a product that they _can't_ sell. If and when they decide to fix it (ha!), I'll send in my check. -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454