<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2651.75">
<TITLE>RE: Back on the Soap Box</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Darn, I was beaten to the punch. I had hoped to utilize the lull
before the storm to propose a new 'tall pole' to vote on at the Users Group Meeting
which I hope will can act as an umbrella to capture many other specific development
issues (even Bo's need for an on-line CP upgrade).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The quality and speed of software development needs to be
improved.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The overall quality is certainly lacking in products such as
FoxView/FoxDraw. There is going to be a V99.2.1 release only because V99.2 was
so buggy. And how come it is about the 3rd time that we have been notified that
Foxboro has finally figured out why the AMD-chip based CP's (CP30B, CP40B, CP60) have
issues with maintaining fault tolerance. And why does I/A for the 51 series
still come bundled with Solaris 2.5.1 when Sun only 'officially' supports 2 releases
back. (Solaris 8, i.e. 2.8 is the current release.) Do you know that the
Ethernet driver (hme) in 2.5.1 needs to be patched to just to be able to reliably
communicate on a 10/100 switched network? Do you know that the base driver with
V6.2 that Foxboro extends to support nodebus communication does not include the
necessary Sun patches? I could go on.... </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hey, I can understand that one of the consequences of modern software
development is that bugs sneak through with releases, but the CAR process is also
painfully slow. (This theme was represented on the e-mail list with the
discussion that "Have you rebooted yet" is too often the TAC solution
method.")</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Bill Ketelhut and the others at the executive level need to hear that
their development process is broken. Either they are working on the wrong things
(Bo's request may be one of the things that they have dropped) or the things that they
are working on arrive too slowly and are filled with bugs.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>If they is going to be coalition voting on subjects at the Users Group
meeting, then a critical, executive level directed message needs to be
delivered.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>John Metsker</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>General Mills, Inc</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: John Miller [<A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:29 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: Back on the Soap Box</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>There are a few of things I need to bring up:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>First, besides Bo, has anyone had success with doing an upgrade to 6.2
and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>not having to reboot the CP's. Bo says that he has seen it
work, yet I have</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>had sources in Foxboro recommend against doing it. Does anyone
know why we</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>would be told this?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Second, in addition Bo's desire to see bootless CP upgrades (with
economics</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>dictating longer intervals between shutdowns, we could use that
feature,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>too), I'd like to see FoxView/FoxDraw brought beyond what I still
feel is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>beta test reliability and features. Two years ago, we were
promised that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the next version of the package would have dynamic trending - where
is it?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>I'd also like to know if FoxView is still being developed or is it
being</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>abandoned in favor of a Wonderware based product? I know this
isn't as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>critical as Bo's issue, but it's important for planning and
upgrades.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Finally, there are two and half working days left until the
User's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Conference. Has anyone given any thought to how those of us who
feel that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>bootless CP upgrades are a critical issue can organize and vote to
see that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>it gets the attention it deserves? Are there any other specific
items that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>we can bring up - additional function blocks, time delayed alarming,
better</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>documentation of existing control blocks, integerated expert
system</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>functions, fuzzy ? Granted, not everyone will have the same
issues, but I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>think the group should be able to form a consensus to support each
other's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>issues. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>John</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT
SIZE=2>-----------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company.
All </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no
warranty </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold
the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur
due to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>your application of information received from this mailing
list.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>To be removed from this list, send mail to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>[EMAIL PROTECTED] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any
mail to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML></x-html>
