From: david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: SCO support - a success story
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:45:01 GMT
Organization: SOFTWARE / DYNAMIX
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA01691; Sat, 29 Aug 92 12:55:21 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA25004; Sat, 29 Aug 92 12:54:44 -0700
X-Received: from dynamix.UUCP by uu3.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)id AA00298; Sat, 29 Aug 92 15:54:36 -0400
X-Received: by dynamix.com (smail2.5c)id AA18907; 29 Aug 92 08:45:01 EDT (Sat)
X-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com, comp.unix.xenix.sco.usenet (comp.unix.xenix.sco)
X-In-Reply-To: <1992Aug27.132540.8677@crd.ge.com>; from "william E Davidsen" at Aug 27, 92 1:25 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

>   Back in May I reported problems with Xenix cron dying after heavy use.
> I had reported it to SCO and they had no ready fix. Well SCO didn't quit
> on the problem, they first suggested workarounds, and then started
> sending me new binaries to try.

it's nice to hear a success story now and again ... thanks Bill 
(seems all ppl ever talk about is the horror stories)
 
>   In the end, success! We have a version which seems totally stable and
> can get on with providing the electrons the net needs. Think of it, half
> the electrons in the message were provided by GE turbines and
> generators!

three quick questions Bill (or any of you SCO guys) ... first, did the SCO
engineers actually come across a problem or was it taking shots in the
dark?   second, (and the reason for the first), I have experienced a
problem with cron where it will run a job at a time when it's not supposed
to (ie: a midnight backup job will run at 9 am, *as well as* the correct
time) ... I've investigated this as thoroughly as I can, it's damn
arbitrary and has no apparent catalyst ... is it possible that this was the
same problem as yours???  and lastly, how can I get this new binary???

>   I mention this because various vendors have been getting heat in
> several groups about support. Even though only one customer reported
> this problem, SCO stuck with and fixed it. Thanks folks!

don't get me wrong Bill, I'm not contradicting what you say, I agree that
SCO has done a good thing with fixing this bug - ***but they damn well
should*** regardless of how many ppl *report* the problem, they should fix
any/all bugs with their products ... however, on the other hand, I would
applaud them for not acting in the "industry standard" way, and ignoring the
problem ...

>   SCO says it will be fixed in the next release, so I guess that's a
> committment that there will /be/ a next release of Xenix, something I
> wouldn't have considered certain.

wow what a surprise ... especially after a sales rep told me there
definitely wouldn't be and I should start selling more unix and even moving
xenix ppl to unix ... guess you never really can trust salespeople


#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
#          David L. Jarvis                 SOFTWARE  /                 #
#          david@dynamix.com                       /  DYNAMIX          #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco