🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan27.003716.3226@decuac.dec.com>, rye@scmbrd.dco.dec.com (Bill Rye) writes:
> 
> 1) I didn't mean to imply that I or DEC thought users were stupid.  I meant
> to imply (and most people picked up on this) that in my opinion, DEC was
> just being extremely cautious by not having patches available. 
> 
  If DEC's primary concerns are in the areas of technical and user support
  problems, I can understand that.  We provide remote support to a set of 
  users whose total number is miniscule when compared to DEC's installed base
  and the range of problems we encounter that are caused by mistakes and care-
  lessness is still incredible.  So, while I would very much like to see DEC
  make patches available on the net, I do not view it as a trivial commitment,
  as some people in this newsgroup have made it out to be.  

> I propose the following: Send me a mail message (since I've already marked
> most of the news messages as read, and came into this discussion in the
> middle,) containing the following information:
> 

  I have nothing against going through this exercise again.  But someone else
  from DEC did this 2-3 months ago and received a flood of replies.  Does any-
  one at DEC know what transpired after that ?
 
> 	If internet access is refused, what other options might work.

  Posting and/or otherwise distributing lists of known bugs and actions taken
  would sure help.

  If DEC's reluctance to make bug fixes available is linked to software support
  payments, it seems to me that, within this narrow view, it could still make
  them available via internet if it was truly committed to this approach: as-
  sign user logins to software support subscribers.  Yes, it would take work.


                       -------------------------------------

  Similar debates, tho less vociferous, have been going on in the HP and IBM
  newsgroups as well.  So this is not an attitude held by DEC alone nor an
  outlandish request unique to DEC users.

  greg pavlov
  pavlov@fstrf.org