Compiler woes

[Steve Nuchia]

>From article <489 at obdient.UUCP>, by blair at obdient.UUCP (Doug Blair):
> If you've got a problem with uport, fine. I *expect* to have
> problems, [...]
> It is reasonable to expect that microport will [take care of them]
> Common sense and common courtesy dictate that they get
> a fair chance.

I am suffering daily from problems reported over a year ago.

who is being fair to whom?  I received pretty much every odd
numbered beta release of 2.1 (assuming I remember the sequence
right) in the early part of 1987.  Back then they seemed to
be pretty responsive, although some of the particular problems
I was having they weren't acknowleging as problems.

Typical sequence is I call and say "when I do X, it does Y,
fix it."  To which the drone on the phone says "no one else
is having that problem.  Its probably your hardware."

Then a few months later, after I've had a chance to verify
that other people have called in the same problem AND GOTTEN
THE SAME @!#$%^&*( RESPONSE I call them back and confront them
(politely) with the fact that they've been lying to us, and
ask again if they can fix it.

Around this point in the sequence the problem starts showing
up on the official bug list.  Some time goes by, and then
it dissapears from the bug list.  Maybe they fixed it, maybe
they are just hoping we've forgotten about it.

I really got tired of being lied to about whether or not
a problem had been reported by others.  I am even more tired
of placebo fixes.  I will be evaluating SCO Xenix, and will
report my findings.  (Given my feelings about lining Bill Gates'
pockets, this is a big step).

-- 
Steve Nuchia	    | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy.
uunet!nuchat!steve  | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be
(713) 334 6720	    | infallible, it cannot be intelligent.  - Alan Turing, 1947