From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: setting UUCP g protocol parameters under ESIX SVR4.0.3
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:09:51 GMT

In article <BtG34v.2K1@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:

>>Gee, Larry, we haven't heard much of this from you in a while.
>> ... Making up for lost time, eh?  :-)

>Well I'm tired of everyone bad mouthing Intel based UNIX when the
>problem is in the specific end-user products. 

This is an interesting point. Dead wrong, but interesting.

What are these "end-user products"? Different vendors, repackaging the
same code that they get from USL, adding value and taking various
divergent marketing strategies.

If there are problems in the product then those problems were created
(or neglected) by USL. If USL was doing its job, Consensys wouldn't have
such a bad rep, because there'd be little reason to call their tech
support.

Every Intel UNIX vendor except Dell *has* to worry about a myriad of
third-party hardware, and that support certainly consumes valuable time
that they could be spending correcting USL's bugs.

Those bugs that do exist, get reported and worked upon. We had a
significant list of things to check upon while participating as an ESIX
beta site for 4.0.4 (as you may recall, I even posted here asking for
people to submit stuff). With the exception of the serial driver, which
appears to work but not very fast, the items on our beta list were *all*
taken care of.

Yes, Dell has more resources to clean up USL bugs that other vendors
don't. But is getting each vendor to fix USL bugs in their own separate
way, really preferable to pounding on USL to do it right the first time?
Just think of what Dell's UNIX people could spend their time on, or how
much cheaper the product could be, if they *didn't* have to do so much
bug fixing?

Back to Larry's point. He's tired of Intel UNIX getting a bad rep
because, in his opinion, all of the distributors of the code except for
his present favourite are screwing it up.

Well, to me, fixing bugs is not added value. It's basic value.

If the vendors of Intel UNIX (and their respective cheerleaders) would
take the blinkers off, they'd see that the real competition is not each
other, but those folks at Microsoft and IBM trying to foist their own stuff
as alternatives to UNIX.

There are plenty of ways in which the various Intel UNIX vendors could 
be distinct from each other, even were bug fixes to be a non-issue. To
bundle or not to bundle, levels of support, added third-party drivers,
implementations of X, etc. As for fundamental problems in the UNIX
source, that is *clearly* USL's responsibility.

More than a year ago, I tried making this point to the various Intel
UNIX vendors, and asked if their would be interested in co-operating on
technical issues -- partly to act as a united front to USL when demanding
fixes, partly to recognize that the big fight is not with each other,
but with those spastic giants and their NTs and OS/2s.

Dell and ESIX were cautious to the idea but liked it.
Microport said no way in hell.
UHC and Consensys never responded one way or another.

With only two of the players interested, my idea fizzzled. But the
rationale behind it is as valid as ever.

If USL supplies bad code, then it's USL's fault. That one or more
vendors attempt to fix these problems (in manners which may break on
future releases of the source), does not absolve USL of the
responsibility to ship bug-free code.

<Relevant tangent follows>

I think that all of the current vendors of Intel UNIX (including
SCO) have reason to be *very* concerned, not just by NT and OS/2, but
from the new heavyweights preparing to compete in the Intel UNIX market.
I was at a reseller's briefing by Univel this week, and I'm starting
to wonder if *all* of the smaller vendors aren't going to get crushed by
Novell (and to a smaller extent, Sun). These guys are slick, they know
what they're doing and where they're going, and they have more marketing
clout than all of the present vendors put together.

It is not insignificant that USL has a 45% stake in Univel. For the
first time, USL has a *direct* financial interest in making its code as
bug-free as possible -- but for whom? Dell, ESIX or Microport? Hehehe.

If what I saw at the Univel presentation is accurate (and I am always
skeptical of these things, but this was *very* impressive), ODT as we
know it now is dead meat. So is much of what we presently know as the
Intel UNIX marketplace.

Look for both Dell and ESIX to be rethinking their earlier
announced commitments to Solaris.

On the other hand, maybe a few months from now Larry will have a whole
new bandwagin to jump on...
-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
   "This Used To Be My Playground" -- Madonna, singing about mens' washrooms
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386