Re: policy myths

In article <1992May6.133246.19311@compu.com> fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes: >aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) writes: > >>In article <1992May01.192941.14694@cdin-1.compu.com> fred@cdin-1.compu.com (Fred Rump) writes: >>> Just one more comment. I see executive level types respond to comments in >>> other newsgroups or via email. (Unify, Progress, SCO etc) > >>Eh? I follow comp.unix.sysv386 and the SCO mailing list as closely as the >>next guy, and I have yet to see a response from an SCO executive of any kind. >>Ditto for Progress. I have seen Nico (?) respond to Unify issues in the past, >>but not in a long time. > >Doug has stayed out of public 'discussions' in the last year or two because he >was seen to be stepping on too many toes within the organization. You can >rest assured though, that he reads support@sco.com and the various sco >oriented groups and directs and investigates problems that affect the company >as a whole. I've written to Doug here at home after 11PM and received answers >before I went to bed. So don't tell me the guy does not stand behind his >company and acts responsively to market and customer issues. I also have been Don't put words in my mouth. I just challenged your assertion that SCO executives routinely respond to comments in news. >in touch via email with many other senior execs at SCO over the years. The >reason SCO stands out from the crowd and has taken the lead in UNIX system >sales does not come from not responding to customer concerns. They may not Assuming facts not in evidence... but such arguments belong in comp.unix.sysv386, not here... >Any one in the 'know', as you say, could by now have published the actual >support/maintenance policy here or offered to send one privately. It would >instantly quiet the thunder as then ALL of us would be in the 'know'. You missed the whole point of the thread. All the flaming was about a mythical alleged *future* policy, which doesn't exist. >Try to see the view of Informix from the outside just for one moment by >removing yourself from defending/protecting your company. I believe it was you >that said in a previous posting (which has already been purged here) that a >certain policy is what you thought should exist because you thought that's how >it should be - logic and all that. But then you found out it was different. I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about here... >At other times you've said that you were almost sure, that you could almost >swear by it, etc. - if support people don't fully understand their own >support policies, just think how others from the outside may react toward such >internal confusion. Can you read at all? As stated earlier, I'm NOT a support person. Even so, I *do* understand support policies (those which are genuine, anyway). >W. Fred Rump office: fred@COMPU.COM Of what is oatmeal made? -- Alan Denney # aland@informix.com # {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. If I am caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of my actions. "If SCO would like to use this server in one of their products they have to pay $100 for every copy they redistribute, cause I don't like this company and their braindamaged products." - Thomas Roell on The Santa Cruz Operation