Unix Bugs vs. VMS bugs

[Dave Martindale]

First, let me say that it is indeed unfortunate that much work is
duplicated in fixing bugs in UNIX.  However, that doesn't provide
much of an argument for running VMS instead.

>  With VMS the longest you have to remain in uncharted 
> territory is until the next Software Dispatch comes out. This
> at least tells you what the known bugs are so you don't have
> to replicate someone else's work. Then, every 3 or 4 months you
> receive an update that fixes the known bugs. One company does
> all this work. With the exception of people who find the same
> bug before a Software Dispatch is issued, there is no wasted
> effort.

On the other hand, what if you are in an environment where bugs have
to get fixed, sometimes in a hurry?  If I have source and maintain it
myself, then whatever I consider an important bug GETS FIXED.  It
sometimes is just not sufficient to report the bug and wait months
for the supporting organization to decide that it is indeed a bug,
that it is important enough to be fixed in a hurry, fix it, and distribute
the fix.  Lists of known bugs are pretty useless in some environments -
you can't explain to hundreds of new students each term "please don't use
this feature of the operating system in that way or you'll crash the
system".

If you are in an environment where you can work around offical Known Bugs
and don't care if stuff takes a long time to get fixed, then you can
be happy with that level of support.  Please don't implicitly criticise
those of us who aren't.

As for UNIX sites "paying more" for support, that likely depends on
circumstances too.  How long does it take to develop a VMS device
driver compared to a UNIX one?  How much wasted programmer time is
spent working around Known Bugs?

> I realize that in one sense this isn't a fair comparison because unless
> you're running a Vax, you really have no choice.

Interesting; I never thought of it that way.  We buy VAXes to run UNIX on,
not UNIX to run on our VAXes.

	Dave Martindale