Interactive and me - An open letter to ISC.

Bill Kennedy bill at ssbn.WLK.COM
Mon Jul 16 13:57:44 AEST 1990


In article <3126 at rsiatl.UUCP> jgd at rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
>bill at ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes:
[ I'm singin' the blues about Interactive ... ]

>>Wait a minute!  The AT&T license fee has been paid, we gotta send in original
>>boot/install diskettes, Everex could legally upgrade us just like SCO and ISC
>>did when Microport hit the wall.  I'm interested, is Everex interested?

Charles Hedrick wrote me and reminded me that ownership of a license isn't
entitlement to an upgrade.  If the vendor chooses to ugrade you, AT&T gets the
same royalty as if you were a brand new customer.  OK, so much for that
theory and thanks to Charles for pointing this out.

>I'd absolutely leap at a chance to replace Interactive AND/OR SCO with
>a product whose company understands what support is all about, is able

I'm following up a fairly old article, it sat in my box for a while, while I
pondered this reply (to the net).  Personally, I have ditched Interactive 2.2
because of serialization, bugs, and lack of tech support.  I don't urge
anyone to follow suit, but I've got too much (I'm a sole proprietorship) cash
invested in 386/ix to risk another dime on something as "exciting" as 2.2.
I own/run a business and it thrives on profit, not excitement.

>to produce a package that meets the quality standard of the DOS world from
>even as far back as 5 years ago (you know, things that generally work like
>they should, documentation that bears some resemblance to what's shipped,

John, I don't think it's entirely fair to equate the DOS world with Interactive
UNIX or any other UNIX for that matter.  The "quality standard of the DOS world"
is pretty sad until you have curried and combed out the pearls.  DOS runs and
runs well on specific platforms, UNIX crosses all the borders.  I whole-
heartedly agree with your conclusion (ditch Interactive) but I disagree with
the comparison.

[ more DOS comparison deleted...]

>we bought.  I installed the package on a Compaq 33 mhz DeskPro.  Said
>installation, while a bit more glitzy than 2.0.2, had all the same 
>old problems and still required me to whiz around with vi editing this

Here's where he scares me even farther away from 386/ix v2.2.  John says that
all of the nagging old problems are there, or at least enough of them to
feel like they're all there, but some new layers of distraction have been
added.  I don't want glitzy or exciting installations, I want dead, dirt simple,
thoughtless effort.  I don't want to have to figure out some nifty script or
find my way into some programmer's head to figure something out; just lay it
down on the disk and give me a login prompt.  No thanks, the excitement doesn't
enchant me.

[ lots of good reasons for not buying Interactive if you install/support
multiple systems... ]

>even consider administering such a bureaucratic nightmare.  What's worse
>is that you've apparently (if the press can be believed) hidden behind
>the lame excuse that "your dealers made you do it".  Where have 

I issued an invitation for any dealer/reseller to step forward and say
that they asked for it (serialization), the silence has been deafening.
Perhaps that means that there are net.people and isc.people.  That would
not be new, there have been sco.net.people and sco.non.net.people for
years.  It challenges my imagination a little that if the resellers asked
for it, not a single reseller responded to my admission that I'm a reseller
and asked if another asked for it.  WHO (outside of Interactive) ASKED FOR
IT?!?  Never mind; the net.people know.

>John

Thanks for the follow-up John and sorry for the bulk.  I had to sit on the
article for a few days to make sure that I was making a business decision
and not just reacting emotionally.  Nope, I run a business, I depend on
happy customers, I must maximize my productivity to make a profit, and
Interactive keeps building obstacles.  I don't fabricate or imagine them,
Interactive constructs them.  They've got the last of my bucks and join the
list with Microport, Santa Cruz Operation, and American Telephone & Telegraph.
Jeezus the list is shrinking as firms become prosperous!
-- 
Bill Kennedy  usenet      {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
              internet    bill at ssbn.WLK.COM   or attmail!ssbn!bill



More information about the Comp.unix.i386 mailing list