Compiler woes

[Steve Nuchia]

>From article <452 at micropen>, by dave at micropen.UUCP:
> Recently there have been some postings crying about problems in the Microport
> compilers.  First, let's be fair and note that Microport's compilers are
> all AT&T PCC based.  Thus, most problems are not theirs at all.  The nasty

Beg your pardon!

They sell it.  They sold it to me, I paid them money for it.

Its their problem. Selling defective merchandise is unfortunate.
Selling _known_ defective merchandise is fraud.  Go figure.

> Although many new users seem to think flaming Microport is great sport, let's
> try to improve things rather than just slash at them.  Back up reports of 
> bugs with facts and observations not idle gossip about buggy this or that.

I would be more than happy to fix their crocked drivers for them.  I
have signed an agreement that nominally should have made it possible for
me to do so.  No code has appeared on my doorstep, despite numerous
assurances that it was being looked into.  Of course no one ever called
or wrote to tell me it wasn't happeing either.

I fix broken code for my clients all the time.  Having a broken
machine at home just because I'm not licensed to have source
for it is braindamaged.  Maybe what I need to do is offer to
let them pay me to fix their stupid broken drivers?  If this
wasn't a public access machine I probably would have just stolen
a driver from somewhere, but I feel like the best way to deal
with AT+T is to not piss them off.  They aren't as skillful
as IBM, but they are at least as treacherous.

Maybe I'd better stop now, before I have a stroke or kill
somebody or my machine crashes and I have to type this in again...

-- 
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