Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.misc:10608 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:5202 comp.unix.bsd:13138 comp.windows.x.i386unix:5958 biz.sco.general:9559 Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.bsd,comp.windows.x.i386unix,biz.sco.general Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!pv141b.vincent.iastate.edu!sheldon From: sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) Subject: Re: SCO market share Message-ID: <sheldon.756429162@pv141b.vincent.iastate.edu> Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA References: <2efuku$4vj@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu> <9312142221.aa02201@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> <hastyCI38BF.1on@netcom.com> <9312170856.aa01663@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> <2f4spb$lcq@slab.mtholyoke.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 23:12:42 GMT Lines: 63 In <2f4spb$lcq@slab.mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes: >God damn it, Nigel, you're spewing rhetoric but not responding >to any of the counter-arguments people have been presenting or >answering the questions inevitably raised by your assertions... The non-rhetoric spewing section is in the back of the bus, I suggest you stop sitting up front. :) >o Who is your vendor? Most of the people reading this group have > had long years of experience dealing with vendor support, and > have all experienced no end of frustrations with it. If your > claims about instant turn-around are true we'll probably all buy > from the same guys as you do tomorrow. Agreed. I've gotten frustrated by many a company. But I still rather doubt that I'm going to know more about the solution than they do. >o Does your vendor reimburse you for business lost due to downtime? > You keep implying this by saying that the reason you prefer a > commercial OS is because you can't afford to be down for a few hours. > We're not all publishers, but there are many other business that have > even higher costs associated with down-time (banks and traders, for > example.) No, but if some puke sells me a system he claims is going to work, and it turns out it doesn't, I can at least sue him and get my money back for the junk. This responsibility, and obligation typically works with most people to help give incentive to provide a good product and good support. >> How exactly would this be better if I had source >> code and an unsupported OS? >If you had an unsupported OS things would be worse. But a free OS isn't >automatically unsupported... in the contrary, you get many levels of >support, depending on how much you want to pay. Pay nothing and you >get some support from the Net, but not enough for many of us who use Net access ain't free. My sig has .edu pasted on it too, but even I'm not this ignorant. Although, it may be cheaper than Compuserve access... >systems in production. But if you pay what you would pay to your vendor >to a third-party contract support company, and you'll get a level of >support that many of us believe to be far supperior to what you'll get >from the typical vendor. You have said nothing to convince anyone of >the contrary. In the world of commercial software we call these people resellers. Most people get their front line support from their reseller. When my IBM breaks, I don't call up IBM and ask for a new part. I called up Computerland where I bought it from and get it from them. Considering these resellers are very likely the same types of people as your third-party contract support company, I see no way in which you can claim they are going to offer better support. Perhaps different support, but not necessarily better. -- Steve Sheldon [These are my own opinions] Iowa State University ICSS Resource Facility by day sheldon@iastate.edu ProMap, Inc. by night