(Was: Can't backup to floppy)

[Dimitri Rotow]

In article <433 at l5comp.UUCP>, scotty at l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes:
> In article <270 at belltec.UUCP> dar at belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) writes:

(...Scott replies to my last posting, indicating that no one here informed
him of our UNIX support policies, and that he was interested in our UNIX
release primarily for using our WGE "Blit" board ) ...

Scott, thanks for your good comments about the WGE!  You also raise some fair 
questions about our UNIX distribution.  I get the feeling though, that we're
going around and around the same topic without cutting through to the center
of the issue.  I see the topic centering about whether or not:

	1) There is a community of users who desire direct access to the
	   Intel/AT&T/Microsoft UNIX effort without massaging by third 
	   parties.

	2) There is a community of users who do not require, and are not
	   interested in paying for, support services like telephone
	   tutorials, bug fixes in advance of the next release, configuration
	   help with non-standard configurations, etc.

	3) Whether companies like Bell (or anyone else) should create product
	   offerings which service 1) and 2) above, keeping in mind that such
	   products may be entirely inappropriate for other user communities.

	4) How companies can provide such product offerings without confusing
	   users or markets, or without inadvertently selling the wrong 
	   product to the wrong customer.

I agree with you 100% that if someone desiring extended phone support, custom
bug fixes, etc, gets sold a product which does not include such services, 
and is not informed of such, then a bad thing happened.  If that's what
happened to you, I'm sorry, but I can tell you that no salesperson here
(especially not Al Holmes) would do so deliberately.   There is, by the way,
a rather long winded set of literature (contributed to by your humble  :)
correspondant in our customary length) setting forth in excruciating detail
exactly what our UNIX publishing program is all about.

I know you got UNIX from us only to run the Blit card, so it's a fair comment
that you didn't have much choice in liking our support policy for UNIX if you
wanted the Blit.  To remedy that, we ported the Blit software over to 386/ix
and to SCO Xenix (on their pre-release with STREAMS).   The only reason we
didn't do Microport is that we have the resources to target only one
"generic" release, and if you can only do one you pretty much have to do
the Intel/AT&T/Microsoft ("IAM") product.  I hear that future Microport
releases will be able to accept device drivers, etc, done for the IAM product
unmodified. 

On to the specific questions you raise (all good ones) ...

> 
> >The idea is to provide a high quality UNIX for professional users at low cost
> >under the assumption that there is a class of UNIX users who do not need the
> >support services which are bundled into the price of other UNIX's.  There are
> 
> That's all well and good. But if I find a bug in your product are you going
> to fix it and send the fixed version to me? To my customers? I mean if all
> that's required is to supply a YACC compiled with the #define set for big
> memory are you guys going to do it?

No, we won't.  Bugs get fixed in the next release, if we and Intel and AT&T
can coordinate on getting the fix in.   Anyway, if it was as easy as you 
make it sound, there would be no support concerns in the industry,
nor would SCO be charging thousands for the spectacular support (of the above
stripe) they do provide.  On our full support products, we do exactly the 
above and considerably more ... and you get to pay for it!  For example,
you've probably read the net traffic about how great our tape products are
and how expensive they are too.  You also read about how cheap other tapes
are together with a zillion net postings about how to work around their bugs.
Our UNIX publication is for those people who can assess the release as 
being suitable for their use and are willing to live with any bugs found
until the next Release.  Release 3.1, for example, fixes numerous 3.0 bugs,
and Release 3.2 fixes yet more.

> 
> I don't want support, I want BUGS FIXED! I want the damn thing to work with
> an Adaptec ACB2322 controller without some excuse like "Our driver gets
> confused by onboard ROMs" (A direct quote from Jennifer in your tech
> support dept.) Or "We haven't had alot of luck running our software on
> Mylex motherboards with Maxtor hard drives." What the hell does a Maxtor
> hard drive have to do with the motherboard? Much less wether your software
> is going to work reliably?

Well, fixing bugs IS support of the highest order.  In terms of the Adaptec,
you're being unfair to Jennifer by quoting only part of the issue.  The
Adaptec, sales literature from Adaptec notwithstanding, is *not* the same
as a Western Digital standard AT controller.  That's why they have on board
ROMs: to fool DOS into thinking it is a real WD clone when it's not.  by
piecing together your own system from multiple vendors you certainly can
get a lot of benefit, but only if you are willing to pay the price in terms
of integration.  UNIX System V/386 is targeted at systems utilizing IBM PC 
AT compatible controllers, BIOS, and (other than 32 bit data paths) systems
architecture.  The configuration you mention has quite a few subtle,
but nonetheless critical, incompatibilities with the IBM AT standard.  Even
if we were to sell UNIX 3.0 or 3.1 with support bundled in, there's no reason
why we'd be obliged to make it run for you with a non-WD compatible controller
any more than we'd be obliged to make it run on Macintosh.  Why should we 
be liable for the stories the Adaptec sales guy told you?

The bigger picture, of course, is that integrating multiple components has a 
major economic value in today's market.  Our UNIX gives you the option of 
capturing that value for yourself through your own sweat equity in working 
through your first integration.  With other products, you get to pay for
the integration support over and over, even after you've figured out how
to get all the components working together.  (Of course, you could always
buy a pre-integrated system and save the headaches, right?)

Hey, if integration were easy anybody could do it!  :)


> >Since we're not here to play Big Brother, the best we can do is to treat
> >our customers with respect and give them the ability to make 
> >their own determination as to how appropriate UNIX System V/386 and our
> >support policies are for their particular use.   If they don't like the
> >deal once they're into it, we cheerfully refund their money and let 
> >them return the product.  Why are you bashing us for giving people an 
> >option that they otherwise wouldn't have, and which many thousands of 
> >people are happy to exercise?
> 
> Otherwise wouldn't have? I dare say that most reputable software suppliers
> are more than happy to refund a customer's purchase if it turns out they
> got something that just plain won't work for them.
> 
> As for my "bashing" I'd say we're riding a VERY fine line here. After all,
> what sounds like an advisement of a policy that some people might find
> unsettling could definitely look like bashing to someone concerned with
> their public image. 

Well, I can't fault you for having fun at our expense, but don't misconstrue
what we legitimately say.  The "option" you otherwise wouldn't have is the
ability to get direct access to the Intel/AT&T/Microsoft code without being
*forced* into paying for either a) proprietarizations or b) technical support
that *you* don't want.  Now, if you don't want that deal, fine!  Go buy 
Interactive, or Microport or SCO.  We actually sell SCO Xenix to people who
don't want that deal, so we're not in the least bit upset or snotty if 
someone doesn't want to buy UNIX from us.  The only way our image gets hurt
is if we inadvertantly sell the wrong UNIX/Xenix to the wrong customer, or
if our President gets on the net and writes long, boring postings. :)

Suppose you're not sure about whether or not you want the UNIX deal?

Try it!  See for yourself!  Don't listen to any sales talk or believe 
any sales literature ... get into it one-on-one in the privacy of your
own CPU and see what you think.  If you don't like it for any reason,
send it back.  Note that unlike many other vendors, we don't force you
to allege that there were bugs in the product, or it didn't work, or 
any other tense deal.  Most other vendors aren't so generous because
they are worried about software copying.  I'd rather take a hit on
some software copying than stick someone with code they don't want.

> 
> I think you will agree that your policy of non-support is going to look REAL
> bad to alot of users. Your words about most unix users not needing support

It will look bad to those who want support bundled into the price they pay
initially.  It looks good to those who don't want to pay for support they
don't need.  What's so wrong with giving people a choice?

> 
> >Note that our hardware products are sold under a different support policy,
> >where we have unlimited support for use.  Also note that we are respectful
> >of your comments and sensitive to the idea that a large class of customers
> >desires to have support bundled in or as an extra price option.  We will
> >be providing such a support program with our 3.2 "merged" product.
> 
> Then I read this paragraph and go "ARGH! I'm trying to nail Jello to the
> wall." Did I make an unwarrented bash against you guys or not? I'm confused
> now.

Well, you *do* make a strong case, but you've been fair.  What the heck ...
if you don't want to get bashed from time to time, stay off the net, right?

In our hardware product families there is no global super set 
industry standard like there is in the AT&T/Intel driven UNIX product.  In
areas like that we provide support to the hilt.  I agree with you that if
in UNIX publishing we provide the option to buy support as an extra item then
to be consistant we should do the same in our hardware lines as well.  We
haven't yet figured out how to do so, given the complexity of our current
hardware distribution channels.  

In terms of UNIX, by producing a set of "support service" products for Release
3.2, we're being responsive to the idea that support can hardly be said to
be "optional" if it is entirely unavailable.    We also seek to broaden
the distribution of our UNIX packages to people who need, or will not utilize
the product without, a support commitment that includes the matters you
raise: telephone support, configuration support, and bug fixes prior to the
next release.

Scott, don't get me wrong: we're not uptight about legitimate bashing (did
I really just say that? :) )  but we're real concerned about misunderstandings
with our customers.   That's why the length of the responses, despite their
tendencies to act as lightning rods.


- Dimitri Rotow	


PS - There are some spiffy new images in the X image tape we distribute, if
you haven't gotten a copy recently. 


PSS - POLITICS!

Why the big deal about support policies and UNIX?  I think one of the big
problems we have in the US right now is a general abdication of personal 
responsibility.  People seem to want the government, business, their lawyers,
anybody, to protect them from themselves.  I can't support enough the idea
that people *shouldn't* be ripped off by shoddy products or false claims, but
there are *some* activities (like flying, rock climbing, kayaking, computer
consulting, running beta software) which are at their core risky and 
cannot be made risk-free without eliminating the reason for the experience.
The movement to make *all* things safe for *everyone* is making it harder
and harder for alledgedly free, consenting adults to take the risks they
want to take.

You know, *half* of the cost of a new airplane is a one-time insurance
premium paid by the manufacturer to protect from customer lawsuits! 
Suppose you could afford $30,000 for a new airplane, but not $60,000?
There is *no way* for you to do a deal with Beechcraft or Piper that says
"Hey, I trust you guys for your reputation over the last 40 years, and the
20 or 30 years this model plane has been built.  I'll look it over real
careful before I fly it, and absolve you from all harm, from my own free
will, to save myself $30,000.  I know you guys are human, and that some 
of the planes may have a mistake or two in 'em, but I'll take my chances."
You can't do that, because our legal system has not yet evolved a general
release that stands up no matter what the challenge.

Just so, you can't go board sailing off Tiburon Beach anymore, because you
can't give the Tiburon city council a general release, and it's only a matter
of time before you can't become a computer consultant, integrator, etc,
without passing some state exam board that wants you to learn about 
yesterday's technology.   This isn't an argument about whether companies 
should be able to defraud customers or how good the Tiburon city council
should be at giving board sailing lessons:  it's about whether or not free
people in a free society should be free to make their own judgements about
what risks they're willing to undertake.
 
I know that the support/non-support issue is not the same big deal as
the above issues [ *especially* board-sailing! :) ], but I think it
important nonetheless to let informed, consenting, adult customers
get access to whatever they want.    How to deal with people who say 
they don't want to pay for support but demand it afterwards?  Tough
question ... the lack of answers for it is one reason why most computer
companies are no longer as liberal as they once were about handing out
beta releases, internally developed code, and other neat-o stuff to
their customers.