Xenix/286 UUXQT/L.cmds problem

[Jonathan Bayer]

In article <141100011 at cpe> tif at cpe.UUCP writes:
>
>>Written  8:03 am  Mar 15, 1989 by ispi.UUCP!jbayer in cpe:comp.unix.xenix
>>In article <141100009 at cpe> tif at cpe.UUCP writes:
>>>Written 10:40 am  Mar 13, 1989 by ispi.UUCP!jbayer in cpe:comp.unix.xenix
>>>>In article <1885 at viscous.sco.COM> uunet!sco!rosso (Ross Oliver) writes:
>>}>}Yes, we are currently working on a Support Level Supplement to
>>}>}provide HDB UUCP for XENIX 286 users.  [...]
>>}>So when do you come out with a fix for the bugs in the 386 version??
>>}[...]  The paragraph above the one you included described a correction to
>>}the 386 version, thus they are not ignoring bugs.  [...]
>>     ^^^
>>Please retract your comments.  The paragraph describes an update to HDB UUCP
>>for the 286 version, and is not talking about the 386.
>
>I guess I was not clear enough.  "The paragraph above the one you included"
>is referring to this:
>
>Written  2:44 am  Mar 11, 1989 by sco.UUCP!rosso in cpe:comp.unix.xenix
>>In article <1125 at tessera.UUCP> jtc at tessera.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) writes:
>>>System	: SCO Xenix/286 2.2.1
>>>Bug	: PATH in uuxqt is hardcoded to /bin:/usr/bin
>>
>>This was fixed in 2.3.  HDB uuxqt now (correctly) allows full path names
>>to be given for commands.  I believe the default path, however, is
>>still hardcoded to /bin and /usr/bin.
>
>Which demonstrates that SCO _is_ addressing bugs in the 386 version.
>
>			Paul Chamberlain
>			Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp.
>			{killer | texbell}!cpe!tif


I have gotten a few e-mail replies to my original comment asking when
SCO will fix the bugs in the current release.  They all asked me
to back up what I said, and scolded me for publishing an unwarrented
remark.

First, I apologise to those of you who were offended.  Especially Ross
Oliver, who has help me in the past.  The comment was directed at SCO,
and not Ross.

Second, the problems that I have been bugging SCO about since November
are listed below.  These are not all the bugs, just the ones that I have
listed in my database.  When I called in November, I was told that a fix
would be available within a "few" weeks.  I called back in January, and
was told that the fix would be within 2 weeks.  In March I called again,
and was told that the fixes/updates were being delayed due to the push
to get the new user interfaces out for the Office Portfolio.

I don't mind that the fix is a _little_ late, and I usually don't mind
a protracted delay, especially since I do have a work-around. 
Unfortunately the work-around involves my editing files by hand.  Try
telling a customer who wants to change a uucp parameter that he has to
do it by hand instead of using the supplied utilities.

I do mind that I have been given several dates as to when the fix would
be available, and have not been given any call backs or any other form
of notification.  If I had been told back in November that the fix would
not come out until April, I would have bitched a bit, but I could have
lived with it since they would have given me a real date instead of a
fantasy date.  I much prefer reality to fantasy.

		1. system crashes during uuinstall, refering to /etc/ttys file
		2. uusub doesn't exist.
		3. uucico is hard-coded for HZ=20 instead of 50
		4. security problem with uucp.  /usr/spool/uucp is
		   rw for everyone.  lock files are put in /usr/spool/uucp.
		5. the mkuser script makes the login directory
		   in /usr/spool/uucp/????.  the directory is removed by
		   the uuclean script if there is nothing in it.


I do not want to get into a flame war.  I like SCO, and in general their
support has been good.  I will continue to defend SCO as I have in the
past against unwarrented attacks, as Paul and others have done with my
posting.


JB


-- 
Jonathan Bayer			      Beware: The light at the end of the
Intelligent Software Products, Inc.	      tunnel may be an oncoming dragon
19 Virginia Ave.				...uunet!ispi!jbayer
Rockville Centre, NY 11570  (516) 766-2867    jbayer at ispi.UUCP