🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <52535@uunet.UU.NET>, rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) writes:
> In article <63900002@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu>, bob@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> > the support folks at sequent are reasonable people who treat any problem you
> > encounter as THEIR problem and resolution is quick.
> 
> Sorry, I can't let this go by unchallenged.

Well, I can't let Rick Adam's statement go by unchallenged, either.  :-)

We acquired our first Sequent B8K in 1985 and now have two B21K's and a
Symmetry.  Other campus organizations have since acquired additional
Sequent systems.  We have found Sequent to be one of our most reliable
and responsive vendors.

We have always found them to be helpful with hardware and software problems.
We have participated in several joint software ventures with them and have
engaged in software and hardware development projects that benefited from
their cooperation - porting Berkeley Pascal, a Multibus to UNIBUS converter,
language testing and validation, etc.

We have not encountered the problems that Rick Adams reports - our terminal
connections go through our own ISN hardware and software, and we have
upgraded the kernel's TCP/IP code to 4.3BSD-Tahoe.  However, before we had
the ISN connection, we used Sequent terminal multiplexors on our first B21K
and had as many as 180 simultaneous users connected through them without
problem.

We have had many more problems with Sun's re-interpretations of current
versions of Berkeley code, so their doing it proves little.  Since I have
both Sequent and Sun in the same class, I think Sun deserves the C+ for
product; I would give Sequent a B+.

Is Sequent perfect?  Of course they aren't.  Are they as good as CDC, DEC,
IBM or Sun?  I think they're better.  I agree with bob@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu
that the Sequent people are reasonable and helpful and I'm always pleased
to recommend them to the many people who call me for references.

Vic Abell
Assistant Director
Purdue University Computing Center