SCO stopping enhancements for Xenix?
Karl Denninger
karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM
Thu Mar 8 03:51:10 AEST 1990
In article <1353 at polari.UUCP> corwin at polari.UUCP (Don Glover) writes:
>In article <6734 at cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet at cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes:
>> If you bought SCO Xenix just 4 months ago and you're already thinking of
>> upgrading to SCO UNIX, it's your own fault for not thinking ahead back
>> then and simply buying SCO UNIX. It was shipping then.....
> Firts of all it was far from stable, and second of all he does not
> need to be thinking of upgradind NOW, just upgrading some time in
> the future when it makes since to.
An open letter to SCO --
Do you intend to offer a free upgrade to the next release (from Unix 3.2.0)
once it's out?
Normally I wouldn't expect this, but the stability problems I've seen with
the Unix 3.2.0 release are serious enough that I am asking, in the open, on
behalf of one of our clients. The problems include but are not limited to:
o System instabilities, manifesting as crashes under certain
conditions (tape + Vp/ix + communications == trouble) and trouble
with tape drivers in general (Archive Viper drives require a
"tape reset" between operations?!). These problems are new to
SCO Unix 3.2; Xenix on the same hardware doesn't have any of
these difficulties.
o Serious problems with the rcc compiler, including files in the
wrong place, code which won't compile (but does under ISC's
compiler), etc.
o Inability to recognize some mice properly (including the mouse
on the ATI VGA Wonder cards). These mice work properly under both
MSDOS and ISC Unix 2.0.2, yet fail under SCO Unix 3.2.
o Inability to handle 19200 baud communications without buying an
expensive intelligent I/O board. Xenix didn't have this problem.
o A "C2" security system which gets in the way and can't be
disabled. ("Relax" mode does not disable it entirely). This
makes some common administrator operations either dangerous or
impossible, and requires that nearly all administration go through
the menu system.
o Rumors abound that the TCP/IP networking code uses broadcast
packets to an undocumented port number in the name of license
security (ie: to make sure you don't run one copy of TCP/IP on 2
systems). This is evil and rude if true, especially on large
networks. Broadcasts require a response from every device on
the net, and in a large network (2000 devices, for example) can
bring performance to new lows. License validation at installation
is one thing (which SCO does now and we don't object to); active
validation at the expense of performance is another and is
completely unacceptable.
SCO, when is an upgrade going to be available? Will it address all of
the above concerns? And will it be no-charge to your current Unix 3.2
customer base?
These are very serious questions. The problems I've seen with the 3.2.0
release are rather nasty and difficult to isolate. It's not stable enough
for us to sell to commercial clients (who we have to be able to support and
expect perfect operational records), and definately not up to the usual SCO
level of quality. It doesn't even come close to SCO Xenix's record around
here; we have sites which have been up for over a half-year without a
shutdown or untoward incident!
Then there's the issue of compatibility. The entire idea of having Unix
3.2 is that administration and programming for it are a >standard<. By
imposing the C2 security layer, SCO has destroyed compatiblity at the
administration level. That is very important to the customer who
already has a bunch of System V R3.2 systems in house and doesn't want to
learn the system all over again (he shouldn't have to!)
I've been a staunch SCO supporter for quite a while, but the Unix 3.2
release has me more than a little upset. We have one customer who has it,
and that's going to be it for us until we see some major improvements --
both in the software and the support/bug repair departments. Those
improvements are going to have to be demonstrated -- something that SCO
may or may not see fit to do for us. We certainly aren't about to make
an investment in the package as it is now, Open Desktop or not.
One thing to consider -- there are lots of fish in the sea. With Xenix
you had a unique and competitive product for business. Now, we can choose
from several vendors, all of whom offer essentially the same thing:
o ISC 2.0.2 (3.2)
o AT&T 3.2
o INTEL 3.2
o ESIX 3.2
o SCO Unix 3.2
You can't just be equivalent -- you have to do it better than the next guy;
either better or cheaper, preferrably both. ISC is trying real hard to
make sure that you have a tough job in front of you. Their 75% discount
on dealer demo copies makes it cheap for us to keep the current versions
available for demonstration and in-house use. Their upgrades are
inexpensive, far less expensive than yours have ever been.
Again, for SCO and anyone else who's listening -- BUG FIXES ARE NOT SUPPORT.
Regardless of what your license says, customers have the right to expect
that their software is functional and reasonably bug-free. They should not
have to pay to get bugs fixed -- functionality enhancements, yes, bug fixes
no. If a manufacturer wants to stick to his/her guns on this one, and say
"you paid for diskettes, regardless of what was on them" then we will buy
and resell someone else's implementation. No further discussion is necessary
or fruitful. We're not looking to sue someone over defects; we are looking
to get defects resolved in a reasonable timeframe. The customer paid for
what was represented as functional and stable software. That's the
reasonable man's expectation, and that is what we require. We go to bat for
our customers when they have a problem -- we must have a responsive
organization behind the products we resell, or we may as well quit this
business entirely.
Finally, with ISC we can call in and talk to a technician immediately. SCO
requires a callback, usually with a 24-48 hour delay. This is increasingly
unacceptable. If SCO can't handle the direct support burden, perhaps they
should allow only resellers to call the technical people, and have customers
go to their dealers for support questions. It might unclog the lines.
Alternately, if you're making such a tidy sum on Softcare Services, add
more techs!
ISC has recently seen the light. We used to flame them regularly, now we
resell their product. SCO used to understand these items well. We received
excellent service for over two years, that is a matter of record and
something we don't deny. We'd like to be able to continue to recommend
and sell your operating systems products. The ball is in your court.
Sincerely,
--
Karl Denninger (karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
More information about the Comp.unix.i386
mailing list