Mach from mt Xinu

[Dick Dunn]

> jon at mtxinu.COM (jon hale) chats a bit:
> > 	That was my fault and I am sorry...
> > ...I actually made the posting on the 11th, but because
> > comp.newprod is a moderated newsgroup, it didn't get out to the net until
> > the 25th.
> > 	If I had realized that it would take so long to get out I would
> > not have mentioned the introductory price...

In response, benyukhi at motcid.UUCP (Ed Benyukhis) flames:

> Extend the introductory price offer if it is YOUR FAULT instead of
> appologizing.

Now go back and read what Jon said.  He's sorry for mentioning an offer
which expired before the article appeared--but why should Jon have expec-
ted such a delay?  Why does the simple courtesy of "I'm sorry this hap-
pened" get turned into "then GIMME!"?  Why should mt Xinu bear the cost of
the moderator's indolence?  A two-week delay just for a moderator to slap
"Approved:..." on an article and send it out is unconscionable.  Nor is
this an isolated instance of such delays in comp.newprod.

Ed, if it upsets you so much, why don't you offer to help the real problem
here, namely the comp.newprod delay?  The moderator is at another Motorola
site, adjacent to yours.

> ...If you plan to compete
> with SCO, ISC, and ESIX, you better shape up and attempt to provide
> similar level(s) of service.

I do not see any indication that mt Xinu intends to compete with SCO, ISC,
ESIX.  In fact, I've seen them make the point more than once that Mach 386
is of interest for academia and research, intended for use by programmers
(or words to that effect).  You're attacking them for not doing something
they've said they don't want to do!

Beyond that, the tone of your posting is entirely inappropriate.  Jon gave
a lighthearted response to some rather caustic remarks, wisely attempting
to cool the flames rather than fan them.  "You better shape up" may work
with children, or in the military; it is entirely out of place among peers.

> > Things have been looking up ever since we started going with the chimpanzees
> > instead.

> This is an unacceptible remark...

OK, how did *you* think Jon should have responded to something like "unless
mt Xinu has stopped using humans as programmers..."?  Is the idea that a
vendor is simply supposed to bow its head and act contrite whenever anyone
starts dishing out snide remarks?

And some of you folks still wonder why vendors are so quiet in this
newsgroup???  (I only post because I don't have good sense and nobody's
told me to shut up yet.)

>...And if you think that your level of
> expertise is higher than other vendors, you are in for a big surprise.

Ed, do you know anything about mt Xinu?  Unless they've gotten rid of a
bunch of key people, their level of expertise probably IS higher than most
other vendors.  They're not exactly new to UNIX, y'know.

Moreover, mt Xinu has never seemed to buy into the tight-lipped, grim
seriousness that you see some companies use as ersatz "professionalism."
Good for them on that count.

> Have fun with your marketing attempts.  I do not think that I will
> be buying it in the near future.  Nor will I recommend this product
> to anyone (unless it is distributed FREE of charge).

Why is your recommendation (or lack of it) at issue?  The extent of your
knowledge of the product seems to be a few postings here in c.u.sysv386.
I've got a copy of Mach 386 at home, and it seems pretty solid.  (OK,
better explain quickly before the jackals come after me for that one.:-)
I've got two machines--the main one running ISC 2.2 and the little one
running Mach.

Sheeesh!  This group gets out of control...I've defended SCO against
flames in the past; now I'm defending mt Xinu?  (Of course, I dare not
defend ISC or I get blasted into an alternate dimension.:-)  Flames are
OK, but there ought to be a layer of general respect and courtesy beneath.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd at ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...But is it art?