Unix Support or lack thereof (long)

[John G. DeArmond]

dar at max.intel.com (dar) writes:


> [Deleted commentary on how ISC & SCO UNIX support stinks
>  relative to support from WordPerfect for their DOS package.]

>I just can't let this one go by ... The whole point is that UNIX is
>phenomenally more complex *in its potential uses* than even a complex
>word processing system like WP.  The cost of support is not in 
>development [even so, it's misleading to state that "90% of UNIX
>comes complete from AT&T ... the sheer maintenance, version control,
>repackaging, publishing and so on for over 60MB of source is difficult
>enough even if you don't change one line.  To change 10% makes it 
>a very major deal].

>The cost of support is driven up nearly exponentially (actually, the 
>factorial) as the number of degrees of freedom in usage and capability
>goes up.  Running a single program in a hermetically sealed environment,
>like WP on DOS, is a fairly straightforward support task.  UNIX has 
>hundreds of utilities, many of which are as complex, or more so, than WP.
>Supporting UNIX means supporting each of those utilities in possible 
>permutations with multiple simultaneous users.  Just being a system
>administrator in UNIX is a major, major support issue.  Picking a printer
>file from WP just doesn't compare.

I fully disagree with these statements.  By your definition, a C compiler
product would be inpossible to support since there are infinite degrees
of freedom of usage.  Rubbish.  From the tone, I gather that you've never
supported a large DOS product and probably have not supported a large
Unix product.  I've done both.  Though a percentage of the support
problems in the unix environment may be of the "RTFM" genre, I'd bet a
majority  concern bogosities in the documentation and/or the system. 
Fully  documenting init, getty and uucp and the idiosyncrasies of the
termio implementation to the extent ISC has the lp facility would
eliminate  many of the problems.  Having the install and/or kernel
startup code test hardware and issue error messages for incompatable
hardware would solve more.  

Though DOS support may look simple on the outside ("Why, it's only a program
loader, after all" I've heard many unix people say.)  I can assure you that
the combination of X different hardware combinations plus Y different 
versions of DOS plus Z different TSRs and drivers  and networks makes Unix 
support pale in comparison.   Try it sometime.

But not to belabor the point.  You want to talk about programming tools?
Good.  Take a quick glance through "The C Users' Journal" or "Dr. Dobbs".
Over and over are the words "Free Source", "Free Support", "800 number"
and in some cases, "Free upgrades".   That's what it takes to be a player
in the DOS world right now.  I hope that becomes what it takes to play
in the Unix world before long.  What it will take is for someone to 
perceive a market for a quality Unix product and provide it.  We'll flock
in droves.

As to the claim that DOS products involve less development or documentation
than Unix, I just gotta laugh.  I look at my Unix shelf and my DOS shelf
and compare what documentation comes with ISC (minus the LPI and X stuff
that I don't use) and compare it to, say, the docs with Turbo C professional,
which I bought at the discount software place for $149.  Turbo C wins.
If I set the Microsoft Word documentation beside the TC stuff (still less
than $500 worth of product) there is no contest.

The only way we'll ever get what we want is to demand it and to speak
with out pocketbooks.  Speak out long and loud.  And recommend the
product with the best support to your clients.  After all, we've heard
all these arguments before way back when.  I can remember when it was
fashionable to say that CP/M support was too expensive to give away.  I
can remember outrageous prices for buggy software.  I can remember when
documentation consisted of partial listings reproduced from DecWriter
output. (Couldn't print the  WHOLE listing; after all, that's a trade
secret)  I can remember when people said "There's no demand for a Pascal
Compiler.  After all, users are not programmers."  Then along comes
Boreland and spoils all the fun with a $49 Pascal compiler with good
documentation and support.  The rest is history. 

I just wonder how obscure Unix would remain if someone offered a $399 or
$499 Unix complete, with documentation and no unbundling and tagged on 
a non-toll free support number?  I just wonder if the Boreland Effect
would reoccur.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | "To be engaged in opposing wrong offers but 
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      |  a slender guarantee of being right."