Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!sysint!robert
From: robert@sysint.UUCP (Robert Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: 'nmake'
Keywords: nmake toolchest
Message-ID: <242@sysint.UUCP>
Date: 24 May 89 04:12:40 GMT
References: <1989@internal.Apple.COM> <11570@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <2060@unisoft.UUCP> <11581@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Reply-To: robert@sysint.UUCP (Robert Nelson)
Organization: Systems Interface Inc, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 33

In article <11581@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) writes:
>
>Depends on the version of nmake: you're talking about a 4 year old piece
>of code which we haven't been allowed to update. nmake 2.0 is a complete
>rewrite and it's being used by lots of internal AT&T projects, all sizes.
>

I think this is the key.  We are talking about two different products:
	Us:
		- A buggy poorly written unsupported piece of alpha code.
	You:
		- A well written supported product.

When we have access to the product you are using the tone of the discussion
will likely be considerably different.

The issue of the toolchest code being unsupported wouldn't be so hard to take
if it weren't for the fact that AT&T already has fixes to most of the
complaints and just chooses not to make them available.  Yet still has the
gall to charge for the _old_ _buggy_ version.

>
>The list could go on, but I've already made the point.
>    
>Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
>
>UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com


-- 
Robert B. Nelson                                Systems Interface Inc.
                                                560 Rochester St, 2nd Floor
UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!sysint!robert      Ontario, CANADA  K1S 5K2