🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4763@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>The service manual for my TR7 says that the automatic transmission
>(which I do not have) is made by Borg-Warner, not by Triumph.
>It goes on to say that part of the agreement that Triumph made
>with Borg-Warner in purchasing these transmissions was that Borg-Warner
>would not hear from any Triumph owners about parts or service.
>Thus, for repair parts, advice, whatever, the manual insists
>that one must go to Trumph, not Borg-Warner.
>
>It sounds like Microsoft made a similar deal with Fujitsu.  I see
>nothing wrong with that.

	Actually, my impression was that the situation was a little
more involved. The analogy should be extended. Thus given that
contract, the situation is that I have gone to Triumph with a
manufacturing error in my transmission and was told "We can't fix that
- we don't carry the parts", so in desperation I go to Borg-Warner and
ask for help and they sy "Go to Triumph - they bought the transmission
and all responsibility for it".
	The problem is that *nobody* is taking responsibility for the
repair(bug-fixes) for the Fujitsu distribution of the Assembler! In
order to get an upgrade the owner must buy an *entirely* *new* copy
from Microsoft, at *full* *price*. This is hardly reasonable. In the
above analogy, Triumph would replace the defective transmission,
probably *free*, at least if the car was still under warrenty. Why
should it be possible for two software companies to so pass the buck
that *noone* is responsible for errors.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa