Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!steve
From: steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Microsoft dropping Xenix
Message-ID: <470@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: 13 Dec 87 06:50:22 GMT
References: <4610@well.UUCP>
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 128
Keywords: Microport Real Unix
Summary: mighty big words from a guy who can't get unix to work

In article <4610@well.UUCP>, wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) writes:
> In article <384\@sco>, amys\@sco.COM (Amy Snader) writes:
> > There's just so much BS out of Microport I can stand, even
> > though I make no claim to having an impartial opinion...

> I'm sorry to say that this is hardly a professional statement; 
> and ms snader's subsequent comments are obviously not informed ones. 
> I won't waste net bandwidth responding to the diatribe against Microport;
> especially since none of my statements were contradicted. But I'd be happy 
> to clarify her nonsense if it's of use to the net.

You then proceed to waste more net bandwidth with a pseudo-technical
diatribe against Microsoft.  Are we to take your article as a model
of professional discourse?

> Sorry amy. You just aren't familiar with real UNIX technology, or
> the effort at commercializing UNIX, which ATT is dumping millions of
> dollars into. If you were you'd know about ATT's certification program.

Of what possible consequence is the money AT+T wastes forcing an inferior
version of unix on the world?  This looks like a textbook case of confusing
cost and value.

> It's a rigorous testing procedure, exercising the UNIX port inside
> and out. And it's designed to insure that a port meets the demanding
> standards which ATT has been working on since 1983. The merged UNIX

I suppose that these demanding standards are mute on the question of
device driver correctness?  How about fsck working?  The system
clock keeping time?  Cron firing a predictable number of copies
of the same job?  "File system hardening" being a meaningful phrase?

Or trivial little things like uucico not core dumping when you try
to run it in debugging mode.  Or vi doing successive shifts without
dropping to ex mode.  Or the system not forgetting about the free inodes
on a filesystem, requiring a reboot.  Or having the text being written
to one virtual terminal not show up on a different one?

What do AT+T's demanding standards say about non-priveledged processes
being able to halt the system?  Like for instance by attempting to
write to a protected floppy?  Or an off-line printer?  Or using a
serial port?

> Unfortunately Microsoft is woefully lacking in a similar assurance
> program; instead, all one has are promises from marketing. If Microsoft had 
> been serious about maintaining upward compatibility, they would've set up a 
> similiar certification program for XENIX. But they haven't; and there's no 
> formal way of testing out whether 100% of XENIX binary compatibility has been

And how do you propose to make such assurances?  Ever hear of
AT+T SystemV?  The one that was supposed to be the standard?
The one before release 2?  The one that still had termcap?  Feh!

Binary compatibility is a great deal less important than correct
implementation of documented features.  I won't debate exactly
how important it is - obviously it is important to at least one
person.  Nevertheless, what assurance can Microport give me
that SystemV release 4 or release 3 version 12 or SystemVI or
whatever won't break some binary image somewhere?  What are you
going to do, give me my money back if I can write a program that
works on one and not on the other?

> achieved. The only way a XENIX customer will know if his application will
> run is by trying out the merged product. If it doesn't, he's out of luck.
> He'll have to buy a whole new package or be stuck forever with an
> operating system that is no longer supported. What a wasted investment!

Or get an update from the application vendor.  How hard can that be?

I bought Microport SystemV almost exactly 12 months ago.  Guess what?
It still has bugs.  "No longer" supported?  It never was!  We aren't talking
niggly little bugs in /usr/games either.

> UNIX customers however can rest assured that any application which
> uses the certified UNIX technology will run under the merged product,
> without changes. This is the whole point behind the certification program. 
> And it's part of the reason why ATT has put millions of dollars into porting
> application software over to UNIX. According to Intel, there are more 
> application programs being ported to UNIX on the 386 than any other 386 
> operating system. ATT is not about to lose its investment here.

Is this anything but marketing noise?  How much did this incredibly
foresighted company not loose playing with Olivetti?  Convergent?  Handle?

The problem in the unix software industry isn't incompatible features,
it's incompatible bugs.

> But since you've raised the subject, I would like to use this opportunity and
> ask Microsoft to formally guarantee its customers that their investment
> is a sound one. And I don't mean its usual marketing hype; their marketing
> department's ability to deliver on their promises speaks for itself.

But since you've raised the subject, I would like to use this opportunity
ans ask Microport to formally guarantee its customers that their investment
is a sound one.  And I don't mean its usual marketing hype, nor do I mean
having the technical support staff lie through their teeth and tell me
they've never heard of a problem I've been calling in about regularly
for months, and about which I know other people have been calling.  Fix
this shit or take out a loan and give everyone their money back.

> In my opinion, without a certification program for XENIX they have a 
> burden, a responsibility, to offer some sort of real assurance that 
> their customers aren't going to be stuck with obsolete technology next
> year. The only real assurance that I can see would be a money back
> guarantee if they fail. Considering that their customers are gambling
> on Microsoft's ability to deliver what they promise, I don't see why
> Microsoft would hesitate to do this. Unless of course they don't 
> think they can deliver on XENIX binary compatibility.
 
> But I expect the silence to be quite deafening, and very telling. And I 
 
>        Dwight H. Leu                   ihnp4!amdcad!uport!dwight
>        V.P. Engineering                well!wolf
>        Microport                       microsoft!sco!ucscc!uport!dwight
 
> These statements expressed are of course my own viewpoint.

Couldn't have said it better myself.  How can you show your face
in public?  And take pot shots at Microsoft?  Give me a break.
You should be doing engineering, not marketing.  We can all see
there is enough to be done.

> Will they ever?"

-- 
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