Compiler woes

[Steve Nuchia]

>From article <18094 at watmath.waterloo.edu>, by rwwetmore at watmath.UUCP:
>   This is not a flame of MicroPort whom I consider the most responsive and
> responsible of all the suppliers, and the best bet for those looking for an

This statement caught me by surprise.  Exactly what do you mean by
"responsive"?  That they answer their phone?  Have they actually fixed
anything that you've reported to them?  Their position seems to be that
if it is hurting everyone it needs fixing, otherwise it must be pilot error.  

Of course they'll make encouraging noises, but I'm bright enough to not
sell my clients encouraging noises.

> implement them.  Reporting problems to MicroPort and posting explicit
> examples to the net are not worthless exercises, though. So rather than

On what do you base this assertion?

> flames, lets have a barrage of well-documented bug reports that hopefully
> cannot be ignored.

In the early days of comp.unix.microport there was a bug list.  As
far as I can tell microport fixed some of the cosmetic "problems"
from that list.  Hurrah for them.  They then flasely claimed to
have fixed others, and charged for the placebo "upgrade", which
was dangerous to install.

To be (somewhat) fair, they did (eventually, like after a year
of asking for it) make a working /bin/mail and yacc (large arrays)
available for the price of a download.  Of course with a broken
serial driver I have to download it at a snail's pace, on my nickle.

You want to talk about _responsive_ ---  EVERY TIME I FLAME
MICROPORT I GET A CALL FROM SCO.  I have received a grand total
of 2 unsolicited phone calls and maybe 10 pieces of Email total
from microport.
-- 
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