Copy Bug Reports to SLUG? (was Re: problem with ux400)

[Len%AIP1%TSD%atc.bendix.com@RELAY.CS.NET]

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 10:19 EDT
From: Len Moskowitz <Len@HEART-OF-GOLD>
Subject: Copy Bug Reports to SLUG? (was Re: problem with ux400)
To: "3077::IN%\"SLUG@warbucks.ai.sri.COM\""@TSD1
In-Reply-To: <19900628154051.7.CHUCKO@CERBERUS.arc.nasa.gov>
Message-ID: <19900629141904.0.LEN@HEART-OF-GOLD>
 
Chuck Fry writes:
 
 > 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.
 
You pre-suppose that all SLUG readers have current maintenance
contracts.  Here at Bendix we don't, though we used to.  These days we
buy what we need when we need it.  In general we don't go to Symbolics
with any but the very worst problems -- it simply costs too much.  Since
we don't have the freedom to call Symbolics with every little problem,
it'd be real helpful to see what kinds of problems others are having.
There are fixes out there that we'll never see (or perhaps see very late
in an ECO tape) simply because we're not plugged into the Symbolics
support system.  SLUG could (should?) fill in that gap.
 
I wonder how many of us are in my situation?  I suspect that our numbers
are growing.