Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!husc6!ogccse!blake!bissiri
From: bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Moja Fritzah)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: MT C-Shell
Keywords: Apology to netters
Message-ID: <1731@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 89 02:49:30 GMT
Organization: Univ of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 39

My apology to netters.  

I received mail indicating that my request for a bug fix to
BDT's MT C-Shell inside of a day was out of proportion.....
particularly since it takes up to several days for a given
article to make its way around the net.  I foolishly
thought that posted articles reached their sites within 
a few hours.  I stand corrected.  The gentleman who wrote
to me was "irate".... he said that the answer to my question
was not an easy one.... and that i might have to wait 10 or more
days... that the best thing to do is to send in my "new" disk
and "pay" (his word) for an upgrade.  

I have another question or two... and this doesn't need to
be answered for several days or weeks if needs dictate:

1). Why is it not incumbent upon software and hardware vendors
    to inform at least their dealers of updates?  Surely a
    15 cent postcard is not too much to ask.    

	
    There is no excuse  for releasing a product with blatant bugs.
	Particulary when the bugs are not announced in the package.
        In most industries, this violation is called
	"false advertizing".

	
At the end of every UNIX manual entry is a heading called BUGS.
This indicates the responsibility and integrity of the programmer(s).

            
    If i sound bitter and angry, i am getting across.
    Inside of a few weeks, i bought a drive "falsely advertized",
    and two pieces of software "falsely advertized".  
	-kevin