Re: problem with ux400

[davel@whutt.att.com]

>  Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 17:39 EDT
>  From: RWK@FUJI.ILA.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM (Robert W. Kerns)
>
>    Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 08:58 EDT
>    From: Len Moskowitz <Len@HEART-OF-GOLD>
>    I find it very helpful to see other's problem reports, if only for
>    information purposes.  If someone wants to respond, great.  If not the
>    only thing lost is net bandwidth.  I'd like to see all problem reports
>    copied to SLUG.
>
>  No!  You'll also lose at least *THIS* reader.  I don't have time to
>  wade through that much mail, and it's only fair that Symbolics be
>  asked to make an initial try before inflicting the problems on such
>  volunteers as Barmar & myself.  I suspect that Barry is probably
>  near the limit of the time he's willing to spend answering Slug mail,
>  so it's not like you're going to get more answers, either.
>
You really aren't required to answer SLUG bug reports, you know. 8^)
It's nice that you and Barry volunteer your time to help out the rest
of us, but you shouldn't feel that you have to respond to every request
for help.

>As a former staffer for Software Support, it used to irk me to see bug
>reports copied to SLUG, because it suggests that you don't have
>confidence in Symbolics' ability to solve their own problems.  At least
>give them a chance to fix the problem before you publicize it to the
>users' group!  If it's a really severe problem and you don't get a
>timely response, prevail on their sales rep (if you can find one) to get
>some attention to the problem.  If that doesn't help, *then* let SLUG
>know about it.
>
>It seems to me that technical questions and/or statements like the
>following are appropriate to be copied to SLUG:
>
> - Does anyone have a hack to do this?
> - Major problem alert!
> - Help! Symbolics couldn't find a timely answer for this
>bug/misfeature.

I'd at least add:  I reported this bug to Symbolics, and here's what
they did about it.  Others may run into the same problem...

>
>Does this seem unreasonable?
>
> -- Chucko
>

To resolve the issue of overloading uninterested readers, what say we
standardize the subject line, so all bug reports contain a uniform keyword
(I suggest "BUG," of course).  If you're not interested, you can delete
all messages containing "BUG" in the subject line without reading (perhaps
an investment of 2 seconds), although no doubt somebody could write
a Zmail hack to do it automatically.

We should give Symbolics a chance to correct the problem before
making a big issue out of a bug, but I don't think saying "I found this
bug, I'm talking to software support now" is making a big issue.

These opinions are shareware.  If you like the product,
please send your $0.02 to
               David Loewenstern
   {backbone!}att!whutt!davel which is davel@whutt.att.com