Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.cmu-tek
Subject: Comments on CMU current status
From: Wodehouse Lord <w0400@ggr.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 10:14:27 GMT
Reply-To: CMU-OpenVMS-IP@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Organization: The Internet
Return-Path: <@andrew.cmu.edu:CMU-OpenVMS-IP-Request@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu@mccall.com>
CC: cmu-openvms-ip@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Errors-To: CMU-OpenVMS-IP-Request@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Via: uk.co.ggr; Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:17:16 +0000



---------  Received message begins Here  ---------

> From edu.cmu.cc.club.drycas!CMU-OpenVMS-IP-Request@andrew.cmu.edu Mon Jan 25 18:57:52 1993
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 18:34:26 MET
> From: roes@phcoms.seri.philips.nl (Aloys Roes)
> Subject: CMU-OpenVMS-IP status
> To: CMU-OpenVMS-IP@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
>
>
>    Hello CMU-ers
>
> I've been following the discussion on CMU-OpenVMS-IP for quite a while and
> I am getting a bit worried. I know that people out there are working hard to
> improve and enhance the code and by no means I want to offend them.
>
> A lot of problems are solved and available via the 6.6-5A saveset from
> Henry Miller (SACWMS.MP.USBR.GOV). But these patches don't seem to make
> it into an 'official' version. I've also seen messages of new functionality
> under its way like the R* utilities, a new and better version of NFS and
> other things. But when will these enhancements be available?
> A third thing I notice is that the same questions keep coming back partly
> because the bugs are still in the official release but what also seems to be
> lacking is a FAQ.
> Look at what we've achieved so far since CMU 'put the product in the public
> domain'. WE CANNOT EVEN DECIDE UPON A NEW NAME!!!
>
> My company has CMU-OpenVMS-IP installed on more then 20 sites. Our group is
> acting as distribution point and internal support contact point. We promote
> it for non-critical installations (for critical applications we recommend
> commercially available products which provide full support). So we are
> VERY interested in the future of the product. But unless somethings changes
> I'm afraid we may have to advise our 'customers' to look at alternatives.
>
> What I think that this product needs is a central contact. Someone
> responsible for coordination of a FAQ, software bundling and possibly
> replying to mails. If nobody will accept this responsibility I'm afraid the
> CMU-OpenVMS-IP product will soon die. Is that what we want???
>
> I'm I volunteering for this job? No, no, no. There are a number of reasons
> why I cannot do it, the most important being that I'm located in Europe and
> that would cause enormous delays in responses to the mailing list since the
> vast majority of the mails is USA/Canada originated. Of
> course I can list a lot of other obstructions like 'too busy', 'no bliss
> compiler/knowledge, 'I'm incompetent', etc..
>
> The important thing here is that I feel that somebody needs to accept this
> task. And it needs to be done within a reasonable time. The first thing that
> person may do is, decide upon is the new name (what a privilege!)
>
> Volunteers? Any other thoughts how to stimulate this product? Or am I just
> plain wrong and is everything ok? Reactions please!
>
>      Aloys Roes
> --
> Aloys Roes,                           <>    Email: roes@seri.philips.nl
> Philips SERI-MPN,                     /\    SERI : roes:phcoms
> P.O.Box 218, Bldg VN-513,             \/    Tel. : + 31 (0)40 784 899
> 5600 MD  Eindhoven, The Netherlands.  <>    Fax. : + 31 (0)40 782 900
>
>