🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jp18gINN23e@sol.tis.com>, mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
> abstine@visix.com writes:
>>Again, the assumption is that we're too stupid to manage our own systems
>>and need to have own hands held to the utmost.
> 
> 	That's not it at all. The assumption is that you're stupid enough
> to keep paying for bugfixes for something you bought that was originally
> broken. That "handholding" is a profitable business.
> 	It bothers me a lot that vendors (any vendor, but since this is
> comp.sys.dec) are willing to sell something with as many stupid, braindamaged,
> un-fixed-since-N-releases-ago-but-have-been-QARred-so-often-there's-a-FAQ
> bugs in it, but they want to charge an arm and a leg to fix it. I have
> no problem with a vendor telling me that if I want ULTRIX4.3 I need to
> pay for it, but they should *FIX* my older version for a reasonable
> amount of time and they should eat the cost of the bad software, not
> pass it on to the customer.
> 

Yeah, well said. The morality of letting people get burned or killed ( and
before someone flames, read the post from the digit on this ) is above belief.
Yes, a patch can be faulty, or can booby trap other parts of the system. BUT,
with out sources, it is impossible to tell, and current licence conditions
forbid you to look!

If the people running Dec can't see the difference between an unexpected
error causing an accedent, and the same caused by the willful withholding of
information on a known problem, I only hope that there is a second vendor
of Alpha chips REAL SOON.

Once you used to feel that Dec was on your side...

~Paul