From: ed@weir.pa.dec.com (Ed Gould)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: Mach 3.0 on 386/486
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:38:50 GMT
Reply-To: ed@pa.dec.com
Organization: DEC Network Systems Lab, Palo Alto

> It is true that mtXinu has their good NNTPSERVER which offers you good hints
> and discussion about Mach386, but you still cannot get updates mentioned in
> mach386.updates WITHOUT buying the expensive AutoSupport.
> 
> That is only thing I have to complain about mtXinu, I think that when you
> buy product, you should have the best possible product. If it isn't as good
> as it should be (it has bugs) then you should get fixes to make it good.
> I mean, there is no buglist in advertisements so you should get a bug-free
> product too. Add-in packages are different, of course you have to pay
> for them, but you should get bug fixes for free.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

No software product ever sold has been free of bugs.  Anyone who thinks
otherwise is fooling themselves.  Fixing bugs costs money.  It costs
staff salaries, it costs overhead for the office space, supplies, and
machines those staff use to find and fix the bugs, it costs additional
staff salaries, and the associated overhead, to collect the bugs and
distribute the fixes to customers, it takes staff to manage the
systems used by the folks doing the bug fixing and distribution, and
so on for a lot longer than many people have taken the time or effort
to understand.  They just want their "simple" bug fix for free.

Product pricing is a tradeoff.  To get "free" bug fixes, the initial
price of the product must have the costs of providing those fixes
built into it.  When we set the initial prices for Mach386 (yes, this
is not an unbiased comment from a third party - I left mt Xinu shortly
after the Mach386 product was first released), we decided that the
customers as a group would be best served by the pricing structure
that kept the initial price low, but had available as an option
additional services at additional cost.  We knew full well that there
would be individuals who would prefer things differently, but it is
not possible to accommodate everyone at all times.  We made the
decision then (and, I presume they have continued to do so in
reconsidering the prices as time has gone on), that we thought was
best over all.

Staff resources are limited as well.  Which is more important to a
small support staff, fixing the bug that keeps the whole system from
booting for one customer, or fixing the bug that keeps "uncompress *"
from working, after a workaround has been offered?  We always thought
it was the former.  "Hire more staff," you say?  Pay more money for
the product.

If what you want is the absolute lowest-price thing you can get your
hands on, it's there for you to get from CMU.  It's not supported,
it's not complete, and it changes every week or so.  That's not what
most people want from their software.  Most people want stability, and
they want to know that when a serious problem arises, someone will pay
attention to it.  That's worth money.

Like I said before, and others have, too, TANSTAAFL.

--
Ed Gould	  ed@pa.dec.com		Digital Equipment Corporation
+1 415 688 1309	  Network Systems Lab	505 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA  94301

"Unison is only one form of harmony." -- LW
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach