[DUG] A change in upgrade policy coming from Embarcadero

[Richard Vowles]

2009/9/19 Kyley Harris <Kyley at harrissoftware.com>

> you know that is is a topic that will just never end in open debate ;)


Yes, but it is more lively action that we have seen here for some time :-)


>
>
> "I'm sorry, but I would not commit to writing an application and then
> fixing any things its users considered bugs gratis for eternity. I would
> consider it reasonable for 3 months as long as it was agreed to in the
> original payment schedule, but I would *certainly* not expect it after 18
> months. In the case of a development tool, with the importance of supporting
> technology, I would expect new releases every 18 months and would be
> concerned if I did not see new releases coming out from the vendor."
>
> It really just depends on what you are developing.. with most of the major
> businesses in the world still heavily relying on 10+ year old technology
> this just doesn't stack up. Advancement for the pure sake of it ony helps
> the OS providers and programming vendors like E... releasing new cool stuff
> every 18 months when the old stuff is not sufficient does not help the
> paying customer.. We have customers still relying on DOS software they have
> been using for 20 years.. still works, still BUG FREE and yes we stand
> behind our product. these releases of new technology are not improving their
> business at all.. what improves their business is the fact that we provided
> a software package that did the job reliably and still does. Our ability to
> provide a reliable product is based on our compilers etc also being bug free
> and reliable..
>

Bug free in this case clearly means that the software met their
requirements. I would expect it to be bug free after 20 years, 20 years to
get it right? Comparing someone who runs their business on DOS and whose
requirements haven't changed to the wild west of software development is
very odd I have to say. Its like comparing apples with kangaroos.

a 3 Month Policy, or whatever agreed.. thats really up to each customer and
> provider and also probably depends on the nature of a product. Let me ask
> this.. do you think to programmers writing the software for 747's and
> rockets provide a 3 month warranty on peoples lives?


Of course, that is why almost all software has a disclaimer in relation to
its reliability when life or death is involved. It is only software
specifically written for those situations that take them into account and
they tend to be written in ADA. Again, do you write software that could
cause people to die? I know people who have and by golly the whole
development process is something different yet again.


> no.. I'm sure they aspire to more than that because they know that their
> laziness or accident will cause lives.. Just like an Engineer, or Architect
> knows that mistakes will cost lives.. IMHO there are NO PROFESSIONAL
> SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS.. its not a profession yet.. its just a thing we all do
> for money. Every professional trade, be it Doctor, engineer, etc all share a
> simple thing called responsibility and accountability..
>

A professional software developer is simply someone who does it as their
main source of income. No need to complicate it further. I can't say I can
see Engineers being comparable to our profession, all the work they do its
very well known and all the problems have been solved already. Doctors on
the other hand are more like us in terms of art/science and I would *love*
to know a Doctor who I could pay once and if I didn't get well I could go
back to again and again and get free treatment until they got it right.
Accountability and responsibility aside, they get it wrong, you pay them
each time they do - they have to live as well, and just like us, they are
trying their best.

I am not targeting this at anyone, or even Embacardo.. I dont have a problem
> with the pricing of Pro At all, and if I ever upgrade.. $1000 here or there
> means nothing to me for the value it provides.. but at whatever price they
> set, they should make sure that it works for its intention.. to claim that
> at the time of release it is "Fit for no particular purpose" is crap, and a
> very singular reason to make me want to quit delphi in the future.. the
> purpose is to allow me to make application Rapidly and successfully RAD.. if
> there are issues that slow me down.. its failing.
>
>
Its funny, its why you can't actually request your money back under the
consumer guarantee act either. You don't own the software products (only if
you have them developed for you), it is licensed for your use in perpetuity.
As such, you don't own a product and can't claim fit for purpose rules apply
to it. *All* commercial software is licensed like this specifically for this
reason, and I find it strange you and Jolyon who both work in that space
arguing any other point of view. This is how the software industry works? Do
you have a problem with it? I think changing it would be quite untenable...

Wanting to quite Delphi in the future? Delphi 2007 was the best release in
years and the team and Embarcadero are more committed to the product and its
quality than has been true in 10 years. Even if you stay with a particular
version of Delphi, if you aren't needing Win32 and x-platform and all the
other things that come in the coming years, it should serve you extremely
well. As Delphi 5 has done so many people.

Now for Jolyon's email:

Jolyon> Barely a day goes by without some Windows update or other
shoehorning itself into my XP system that Microsoft last got my money for
almost 10 years ago.

Yes, but that is only because they haven't stopped supporting that platform.
Do you see patches for Windows 95? 98? Millenium? Even Windows 2000 is no
longer supported. Microsoft has the same situation, they stop supporting old
software once it passes certain threasholds. In Microsoft's case, *they are
still selling XP to new customers*. Most netbooks for example run XP. If you
said they still issue patches for Windows 95 then you'd have something here,
but they don't, and so the argument is well, empty.

Jolyon> And I can only hope that you were being funny in that passage about
“low quality requirements” not being bugs

We are talking Borland and its attitude to Delphi right? IMHO, Borland
treated Delphi users very poorly. And it angered an awful lot of the people
inside Borland who supported and love Delphi. Remember to distinguish
between the people who build Delphi and who *sold* Delphi. I cannot imagine
any developer who is content to ship poor quality code, not matter how much
their management may tell them they need to.

Paul> Do you rmemeber when Microsoft wanted to charge for "upgrades" that
were fixes and what happened?

No?

Richard

-- 
---
Richard Vowles, Technical Advisor
Developers Inc Ltd
web. http://www.developers-inc.co.nz
ph. +64-9-3600231, mob. +64-275-467747, fax. +64-9-3600384
skype. rvowles, LinkedIn, Twitter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.123.net.nz/pipermail/delphi/attachments/20090919/9854ce6e/attachment.html