Key-toggle problem ISC 386/ix 2.0.2 with VP/ix

[Piercarlo Grandi]

In article <294 at minnie.UUCP> walp at hdchq.UUCP (David E. Walp) writes:
    
    > In article <PCG.89Nov20120912 at emerald.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg at emerald.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
    > >
    > >If I were your CEO I would fire you straight away. If your
    > >company demands the best from you, why are you using any software
    > >product that is explicitly described as not guaranteed fit for
	[ ... ]
    > I'm sorry but working under the "no risk" umbrella that you have portrayed
    > would be like working  in the dark ages.  Any one want to go back to CPM?

    > _
    > Mark Hilliard  N2HHR
    > rutgers!rochester!kodak!gizzmo!mark

Executives do take risks, they can, as I said, decide to run the risk of
using for critical applications software whose only guarantee is that the
floppies will be exchanged if found defective within N months. They want to
*know*, though, that such is the case, because they want to know that if
things do not work, the supplier is under *no obligation* to support them or
to pay up or to make things good.

CEOs want to be able to estimate the size of the risk they take, and if
suppliers take themselves out of the picture, this changes the amount of
risk considerably.  If the CEO expects things to work, and the supplier to
solve problems, then the CEO is badly misinformed as to the representations
made by the supplier, and is betting good company money on the wrong
assumptions.

CEOs hate to find out that their subordinates withold such critical risk
assessement information from them. Hope your CEO does not find out, or that
he has jolly good humour (hahahaha! so we can get a new set of floppies for
our thousands dollars! hahahaha!).
    
    I am the "CEO" in question (actually 2nd in command) and need to set
    some of this straight. [ ... ]
    
    Regarding the keyboard toggling problem with VP/ix.  What has gotten lost
    is that the problem is occurring as often as every second or third key-
    stroke!!  Try unplugging your keyboard on every third key hit!!  I do
    not understand how ISC can seriously believe that we can wait until
    January for this bug fix!!

ISC is in the clear, IMNHO; they have warned you in capital letters that you
should have no expectation as to the functionality of the product in general,
and that all risk as to performance is with you; they also, quite honestly
and helpfully, publish a list of equipment that they reckon has a better
chance of being satisfactory to you (because it was to them), without
guaranteeing anything of course. ISC seriously believe what they write in
their contracts, I can imagine.  I can also guess that they also seriously
believe that they cannot possibly support any and every glitchy keyboard you
can find out there.

So you are on your own, and if the keyboard/computer is not on ISC's
"suggested" list, you are doubly so. If you believe otherwise, then you
are engaging in wishful thinking.

    We have a pretty serious investment in ISC products

Again and again I must insist that you have a pretty serious investment in
ISC *floppies*; as to the software, you have it on faith and goodwill alone.
As to the hardware (which I think is the real culprit here) I very much doubt
that anybody ever made any representation as to it working with Unix or
MSDOS or ISC (and have you noticed how much hardware in the PC world today
comes without serial numbers or markings of any sort, including company
names and country of origin?).

If you don't dig such crucial concepts, your business decision taking
process is somewhat optimistic.

    and are trying to remain in the UNIX fold, but when the product (VP/ix)
    goes backwards from release to release it is very difficult to maintain
    the faith.  Is there anyone out there who is comfortable with waiting
    for three months for a priority one bug fix ??!!

If you look at the tipical sw support contract, and I guess that ISC is
tipical, the supplier undertakes, in exchange for a fat fee, to *accept*
your bug reports, not to *act* on them (a support contract usually gives you
only the right to report bugs -- no support contract, and you cannot report
bugs :->). IMNHO, executives should read the contracts from their suppliers,
and take them seriously indeed.

    It is getting more difficult to get the CEO and the DOS-only camp
    to accept the continuing delays in integrating the UNIX products
    into our evolving "enterprise wide" network along-side 3-Com and
    Novell.

You should have no expectations whatsoever as to the performance of ISC
Unix, but this is veryly true as well for MSDOS or any MSDOS product.

The arguments you can use with your CEO and the MSDOS only camp is to point
out that MS has repeatedly released extremely buggy and unreliable MSDOS
versions (3.1? 4.0?), and that they have total control of the thing, and
that suppliers in the MSDOS arena must invest considerable time and money
and expertise just in tracking MS vagaries, undocumented interfaces, etc...

The UNIX camp is more of a level playing field, there are neutral standards,
and puslished, reliable interfaces, and choice of suppliers, and if you
really want it, source code availability, and these things matter to
reliability and your customers.

As long as you know that you are on your own, and your CEO knows what kind
of risks this entails, and is prepared to live with them (as he should,
IMNHO), that's good.
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk at nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg at cs.aber.ac.uk