Re: Informix fix policies (LONG) (Was Re: Informix support: Where are you?)
In article <1992Apr30.050442.29357@informix.com> aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) writes: >Folks, this is BULLSHIT. This popular myth, as put forth by Mr. Hogg et >al, is just NOT TRUE. It's not even REMOTELY true nowadays. I'll grant >you at the outset that in the 4-6 years ago time window, bugfix releases >were relatively rare and encompassed only the most serious bugs (typically >those in SE, C-ISAM, and Turbo). This does NOT reflect current practice. > >For any given major release, there has been a series of follow-on bugfix >releases. For example (ISQL/ESQL versions used below; add 1 for C-ISAM and >subtract 1 for Turbo and 4GL. UNIX versions used for demonstration): > > 2.00.00 begat 2.00.01, .02, .03, .05 > 2.10.00 begat 2.10.00, .00B, .00C, .00D, ... > 2.10.03 begat 2.10.03, .03B, .03C, .03D, ... .03L, .03L1, .03M, ... > >In those days, like I said, bugfix versions tended to include a few (TOO few), >highly-critical fixes. > >Starting with 4.00, a new numbering scheme emerged. All products were >reversioned to the same parent version (e.g. 4GL went from 1.10.03 to 4.00). > > 4.00.UC1 first commercial release > port-level bugfix versions UC2, UC3... > 4.00.UD1 bugfix level 1 > port-level bugfix versions UD2, UD3... (to UD7 at least) > 4.00.UE1 bugfix level 2 > port-level bugfix versions UE2, UE3... > 4.00.UF1 bugfix level 3 > port-level bugfix versions UF2, UF3... > 4.00.UG1 bugfix level 4 (November 1990) > port-level bugfix versions UG2, UG3... > 4.00.UH1 bugfix level 5 (January 1991) > port-level bugfix versions UH2, UH3... > 4.00.UJ1 bugfix level 6 > port-level bugfix versions UJ2, UJ3... > 4.00.UK1 current bugfix level > >For example, Mr. Hogg's lament about the core-dump-in-last-field-of-a-CONSTRUCT >(bug 7628/7650) was fixed in the UG1 update (and may have been rolled into etc. etc. I have a question. Can I call up tech support and ask for one of these fixes to be shipped to me at no cost to me (except for media cots of-course) since I have maintenance on the product?? I develop applications with 4GL and am sure I'd have use for some of these fixes. It's nice to see Informix making all these fixes, I only hope they're not just sending them out to new people buying the software, but are also distributing fixes when requested by or needed by current users of their software. >> find some in tech support who understand the bug you are >> running into. Unfortunately, they are prevented from helping >> by company policy. (other than giving workarounds. Whoopee.) > >More bullshit (and this "prevented from helping by company policy" is >*pure* fiction), as indicated above. > I assume from this that tech support staff have the authority to send us fixes then. (hopefully again at just media costs since I've paid for maintenance) Is this so? > >>If any of these decision-makers had to *use* their products, that >>policy would change fast, because it is *VERY FRUSTRATING*, and left >>me with an abiding distaste for the company (and an abiding sympathy >>for the tech support people who really wanted to help). >> >>Probably the best thing an Informix employee reading this thread could >>do is digest it and slide a copy under company officer's doors (late one >>night). > >Did it occur to you that upper management might give such comments more >weight if they came direct from the field rather than from within? True, that's what seems to be happening here. By the way, I've noticed your responses to problems in this news group, I'm sure I speak for those you've helped when I say they are appreciated. -- /|| // // ,'/""\\' John Postma john@mks.com (519)884-2251 / ||/// //\\' `\\\\\\ Database Administrator, Mortice Kern Systems Inc. / |/ /_// \\\\___/ 35 King St. N., Waterloo, Ont., Can. N2J 2W9 o/ "Things are only impossible until they're not!" -- Capt Jean Luc Picard