6 ms·

Timothy Pearson from Raptor here. I'd like to first extend apologies from the apparently poor support experience from Raptor Computing Systems -- that being sa

Timothy Pearson from Raptor here. I'd like to first extend apologies from the apparently poor support experience from Raptor Computing Systems -- that being said, there are a few exceptional circumstances in play with this system: 1.) This particular case is one that Raptor needed to consult with IBM engineering to determine the correct course of action for. There is a very rare CPU failure mode (we have only seen it happen twice) that manifests with similar symptoms and a ZCAL failure. The root cause here is an apparently defective CPU that slipped past IBM final test, and work is underway to make sure that these marginal, but defective, CPUs are caught instead of being shipped out. 2.) There is definitely more than one person in support, however Raptor has been overloaded with both spam and off topic inquiries. Raptor has attempted to manage this load without much success, despite deploying new features such as the troubleshooting guide at https://wiki.raptorcs.com/wiki/Troubleshooting/Support_Request_Checklist https://wiki.raptorcs.com/wiki/Troubleshooting/Support_Reque... we continue to receive support requests that are missing vital information, and with descriptions that are so generic that the problems could range from "PC not plugged in" to "used non-ECC unbuffered RAM" to "tried to install Windows" (yes, all of those have happened, repeatedly). 3.) We are currently gearing up for a major push on owner-controlled computing. Higher level technical resources are assigned to those projects temporarily, which means unusual issues like the ZCAL problem are being resolved at a slower rate than normal. I'd ask that the general community please bear with Raptor as we work through these problems. What we're doing is hard, it's not as simple as shipping a RISC-V SBC in a known configuration, we have the entire complexity of the traditional PC ecosystem in play. AMD's release of the uber-fast (but ultra-locked-down and owner-disrespecting) Rome CPUs has not helped the owner controlled computing world, and I am still of the opinion that POWER is a better long-term investment than RISC-V in the desktop and server space. FWIW I use a Blackbird desktop as my daily driver, and have not had any complaints with it (in fact it's given me less problems over time than my previous daily driver -- a corebooted ASUS KCMA-D8). Raptor has a Wiki with a ton of information available at wiki.raptorcs.com and I am definitely open to further suggestions on how to make the nascent POWER desktop community a bit more self sufficient than it is now. Remember that x86 vendors don't need to offer significant post-sale support, partly because the Linux community has already filled that role, and as a result they can continue to offer low prices, strengthening the lock-in effect. If owner-controlled computing is to succeed in the marketplace, we need to figure out the best way to ensure that vendors aren't bearing the brunt of those costs and being forced pass them on in higher product pricing. I believe support has reached out to you now that we understand the CPU will need to be replaced. Can you confirm this? Thanks!

letaris 7y ago
I would just add that the #talos-workstation channel on freenode is a very good support resource. While we may not have been able to FIX the issue mentioned in this thread a lot of issues do get discussed and fixed daily. As a new and very happy Blackbird user I got a lot of great support there.
Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
Hi Tim, author here. >I believe support has reached out to you now that we understand the CPU will need to be replaced. Can you confirm this? Yes, support reached out. I said as much in the email, but to address some of your comments publically: (1) Totally understand this and I posess a tremendous deal of tolerance for weird problems with unusual hardware from small companies. But the support experience here was abysmal and no amount of weirdness in a problem excuses the lack of communication. I would be with you every step of the way if Raptor had communicated the progress - the first I heard that IBM was even being consulted about the issue was today - or even sent me communications at the times they promised to in earlier replies. (3) I think you had really better fix (2) before you increase your volume. The reply I received from support today insinuates that my support experience is rare, but I can't throw a stone in the IRC channel without hitting 3-4 people who have had similarly bad support experiences. Whatever investment you're putting into your upcoming "major push", you should probably siphon off some of it for investing in better support. It also bears mentioning that 50+ days of silence, not including an additional 30 days where communications were devoid of information outside of unfulfiled promises about future communications, followed by a detailed response on the day I publish a scathing review online, is worth note. I should hope that other customers who don't have a soapbox to complain on are also having their concerns addressed.
- tpearson-raptor 7y ago
  This was originally going to be published on the internal ticket, but since the issues were raised here I'm going to post here instead. First, I'd like to point out that Raptor already identified one of the major problems here -- that front line support failed to keep you notified of back end progress in diagnosing the problem. Raptor Computing Systems is an OEM and ODM first and foremost, not a services and support firm -- their capacity to handle requests is limited by the amount their customers are willing to pay at time of product purchase, and internal management of RCS is trying to balance support costs with all other costs and overall product pricing. They may not always get it right, but they are trying nonetheless. Yes, this was brought to my attention as a result of the review. That review has apparently caused sufficient damage that Raptor will now be reevaluating whether they can afford to service the individual market at this time, or whether they need to focus on business users only. My personal take: I am saddened to see x86 and locked computing profiting from this, but at the end of the day individuals have always been a difficult segment to target. They tend to want extremely low (below cost) pricing, high levels of service, and generally want to run various proprietary games on Windows while simultaneously settling for a false sense of security through open source firmware wrapping large hidden binary components. Out of sight, out of mind, purchase price above all other concerns seems to be the general takeaway for that market. As a result of this mentality, individuals are not currently Raptor's core market, and at the end of the day the individual computing market will get what it is willing to pay for. If that's locked (but cheap) x86 computing, open source itself may be in serious trouble due to the impending final lockdown of those platforms. If it's instead cheap low power computing (RISC-V, low end ARM) there's an awful lot of fat that will need to be removed from near-essential projects like Qt, KDE, Gnome, Firefox, Chromium, GCC, Clang, etc. to better fit them on the lower end platforms. I have not seen any developers yet willing to put in the time and effort to re-architect those systems for low end computing resources; in many cases the fundamental design would need to be changed (i.e. remove interpreted scripts as much as possible, go back to C/C++ or a similar low level language, etc.). In the case of projects like Chromium, it may simply not happen as the intent of that particular project is partly to serve ads and DRM protected content through a portal system, which aligns nicely with the idea of locked end user computing on x86.

letaris 7y ago

I would just add that the #talos-workstation channel on freenode is a very good support resource. While we may not have been able to FIX the issue mentioned in this thread a lot of issues do get discussed and fixed daily. As a new and very happy Blackbird user I got a lot of great support there.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago

Hi Tim, author here. >I believe support has reached out to you now that we understand the CPU will need to be replaced. Can you confirm this? Yes, support reached out. I said as much in the email, but to address some of your comments publically: (1) Totally understand this and I posess a tremendous deal of tolerance for weird problems with unusual hardware from small companies. But the support experience here was abysmal and no amount of weirdness in a problem excuses the lack of communication. I would be with you every step of the way if Raptor had communicated the progress - the first I heard that IBM was even being consulted about the issue was today - or even sent me communications at the times they promised to in earlier replies. (3) I think you had really better fix (2) before you increase your volume. The reply I received from support today insinuates that my support experience is rare, but I can't throw a stone in the IRC channel without hitting 3-4 people who have had similarly bad support experiences. Whatever investment you're putting into your upcoming "major push", you should probably siphon off some of it for investing in better support. It also bears mentioning that 50+ days of silence, not including an additional 30 days where communications were devoid of information outside of unfulfiled promises about future communications, followed by a detailed response on the day I publish a scathing review online, is worth note. I should hope that other customers who don't have a soapbox to complain on are also having their concerns addressed.

tpearson-raptor 7y ago
This was originally going to be published on the internal ticket, but since the issues were raised here I'm going to post here instead. First, I'd like to point out that Raptor already identified one of the major problems here -- that front line support failed to keep you notified of back end progress in diagnosing the problem. Raptor Computing Systems is an OEM and ODM first and foremost, not a services and support firm -- their capacity to handle requests is limited by the amount their customers are willing to pay at time of product purchase, and internal management of RCS is trying to balance support costs with all other costs and overall product pricing. They may not always get it right, but they are trying nonetheless. Yes, this was brought to my attention as a result of the review. That review has apparently caused sufficient damage that Raptor will now be reevaluating whether they can afford to service the individual market at this time, or whether they need to focus on business users only. My personal take: I am saddened to see x86 and locked computing profiting from this, but at the end of the day individuals have always been a difficult segment to target. They tend to want extremely low (below cost) pricing, high levels of service, and generally want to run various proprietary games on Windows while simultaneously settling for a false sense of security through open source firmware wrapping large hidden binary components. Out of sight, out of mind, purchase price above all other concerns seems to be the general takeaway for that market. As a result of this mentality, individuals are not currently Raptor's core market, and at the end of the day the individual computing market will get what it is willing to pay for. If that's locked (but cheap) x86 computing, open source itself may be in serious trouble due to the impending final lockdown of those platforms. If it's instead cheap low power computing (RISC-V, low end ARM) there's an awful lot of fat that will need to be removed from near-essential projects like Qt, KDE, Gnome, Firefox, Chromium, GCC, Clang, etc. to better fit them on the lower end platforms. I have not seen any developers yet willing to put in the time and effort to re-architect those systems for low end computing resources; in many cases the fundamental design would need to be changed (i.e. remove interpreted scripts as much as possible, go back to C/C++ or a similar low level language, etc.). In the case of projects like Chromium, it may simply not happen as the intent of that particular project is partly to serve ads and DRM protected content through a portal system, which aligns nicely with the idea of locked end user computing on x86.