From: dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat)
Subject: Re: SysV
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:59:44 GMT

In article <Bv953C.17u@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.165358.16305@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat) writes:
> >In article <Bv6txK.GGz@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
> >> jack@admin.mport.COM (Jack Craig) writes:
> >> 
> >> >microport is also an 'excellent port' but i dont feel i can promote it
> >> >is this forum without(rightful) flaming.
> >> 
> >> Microport, ah -- I remember them -- they've have money problems
> >> for quite some time, eh?  Chapter 11 was it?  Actually, they product
> >> last time I checked with all the options was about twice as much
> >> as Dell.
> >> 
> >> >svr4 offerings from del esix, uhc, consensus, and microport all
> >> >bear consideration for issues of price, performance, and support.
> >> 
> >> But to date, Dell offers the most stable, solid and bug free
> >> product on the market.  
> >
> >Larry, will you shut up already?  How many of the current SVR4.0.4 products
> >have you actually tested, and compared to one another?  How do you know
> >that Dell's current offering is any more stable than 4.0.4 from Microport
> >or Esix?  And, from the comments recently, it seems that the 2.2 release
> >from Dell is LESS stable than the 2.1 release.  I haven't seen that kind
> >of bug report about Microport or Esix' 4.0.4.
> 
> Well, you know, I also run Dell 2.2 (4.0.4 in USL parlance)
> 
> Uname -a says:
> 
> ddsw1 ddsw1 4.0 4.0 i386 i386
> 
> I have had >none< of the problems that I've seen reported here.  I have seen
> a couple of problems with the shipped NNTP software -- easily remedied with
> the "real" NNTP (Dell's included version is 1.5.10; 1.5.11 has a number of
> bug fixes).
> 

Good for you.  Your lack of problems doesn't mean that there aren't any.
Same goes for Larry.  My Microport system has had none of the problems that
others have accused SVR4 of having.  That doesn't mean I believe there are
no problems.

> My uptime seems to be limited only by whim (mine) and the electric company
> (power).  I've had no "events" since installing the product.  Performance is
> excellent.  Reliability is excellent.  The "bundled approach" is to be
> >COMMENDED< - not condemned - in my opinion.
> 

As is mine.  Until I started bouncing the machine every couple of days to
swap video boards, my system has averaged uptimes of months (I would recommend
a UPS, BTW - I don't have to worry about power except for (very) long 
blackouts)


I don't like bundled software, BTW.  But that's because I have different
wants and needs for my system.

> This I cannot say about >any<, and I repeat - ANY - other versions of
> Unix on ISA machines.  I've run a number of them -- and I push 'em all hard.
> Every one has blown chunks under the kind of load I place on them - until now.
> 

I build X several times a week, sometimes with multiple builds running in
different parts of the tree.  While this is going on I am usually logged
into work via modem, or playing games, or both.  I've never had the slightest
problem (aside from running out of disk space :->).

> I have no intention of buying Microport.  Microport earned my hatred a number
> of years ago with both their '286 and early '386 releases of 3.2.  
> Unfortunately that poisoned my opinion - but it happened.  The Microport of
> today doesn't seem interested in redressing these old wounds, preferring
> instead to try to sell to a new customer base.  So be it.  I have no
> complaint with marketing decisions, but to this day I will recommend against
> their products because I was left out in the cold, and that shows a
> corporate attitude that could turn against me and my customers again.  Once
> burned, shame on you.  Twice burned, shame on me.
> 

That's fine.  So don't buy Microport.  It doesn't mean that Dell's Unix is
any more stable.  

[ Other vendor reports on which I have no basis for comment deleted ]

> >Until you have sat down and done an actuall side-by-side comparison of
> >the products, you are in no position to make such statements.  If you
> >base such statements on how many complaints there are on netnews, Dell's
> >2.2 is beginning to look like Consensys.
> 
> Bull David.  What I've seen is one particularly vocal person complaining
> about serial interface problems.  Funny that I haven't seen any.  Funny 
> that not many others have reported this either.
> 

Actually, at least a couple more people have backed up the problem reports,
and there have been reports of other problems.  With 20/20 hind-sight, the
Consensys comparison is a bit premature.  But the point still remains that
they are NOT perfect.

> DELLs network support is some of the best out there.  They are extremely
> stable in TCP/IP service, which is a sore spot with Intel-based releases.
> Few seem to take the idea of Ethernet seriously.  Dell definately does.
> That, IMNSHO, is a BIG essential.  Their basic OS release is >extremely<
> stable with the 2.2 issue.  2.1 and prior DID have some serious stability
> problems.  I'd like to think that my reporting of exact and excruciating
> details helped them to fix some of these.  Regardless, they >did< get fixed.
> 

Well, I can't comment on networking (a network of one machine is no basis
for comment :->).  And (some) other vendors are just as responsive to fixing
problems.  In my case, I spent 20 minutes on the phone with Microport
discussing what I wanted in SVR4.2, to help them make their decision on
whether to offer it.  The person to whom I was speaking stopped me fairly
often because I was talking faster than he could type.  And this was AFTER
I told him that I probably wouldn't buy it from them anyhow, because of
their prices.  I've never heard such a story from a Dell user.


> >I'm glad your system works fine.  Bully for you.  But not everyone has
> >the same purchase criteria, or the same hardware as you do.  Posting
> >hundreds of lines of marketing info that no one asked for is uncouth.
> 
> Point made David.  But my experience has nothing to do with marketing info,
> it has to do with who has the best bang for the buck.
> 

Your experience is valuable input to the decision process.  Making blind
claims that "Dell is the most stable" is not, when there is no basis for
comparison.  There may be lots of other reasons to choose Dell (e.g. a
price/performance comparison).  But I cannot abide someone using unproven
claims to "prove" a point, then posting marketing drivel.

I would gladly read 100 postings like yours, which had both technical and
testimonial content, rather than read one posting like Larry's.

> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
> Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
> Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Wexelblat             | dwex@mtgzfs3.att.com  | Somebody get me a
AT&T Bell Laboratories      | ...!att!mtgzfs3!dwex  |   cheeseburger!
200 Laurel Ave - 4B-421     |                       |      
Middletown, NJ  07748       | (908) 957-5871        | --Steve Miller Band