[DUG] A change in upgrade policy coming from Embarcadero

[Paul A Norman]

David,

You are right, and its worth noting how far along MS have moved their "bug
fix" policy since they tried to charge for cdroms to fix bugs.  Many mnay
more years support now.

Please note the distinguishment that is being made here on the types of bug
and fixes.

The most important thing is that developers act in the eyes of the paying
community in  maner that appears fair and resaonible.

Someine here sugested three months I think, I hope that was shooting from
the hip -- becasue that is the sort of thing that will bring heavy
regulation down on us.

We need E to give a good example to us in this regard - especially in this
idea that they can hold over bugs fixes over to a new release.

Not even MS who you hav ementioined gets a way with that now, and continues
to release bug fixes (and sometimes even feature improvements in the update
service packs) long after a new release has come out.

We need E to comitt itself to that.

Otherwise if D costs NZD750 or so then if you need the next release to get
your copy working as you need (as specified) it really costs more like

NZD1500 just for professional.

Paul


2009/9/21 David Brennan <dugdavid at dbsolutions.co.nz>

>  Hi Paul,
>
>
>
> I agree Delphi 8 and Delphi 2005 were mistakes and arguably not fit for
> purpose. I also agree that no one (ie Borland or Embarcadero) has made good
> on that. Excluding them from the upgrade path is very poor, and arguably
> users on those versions should be offered a cheaper upgrade if anything.
>
>
>
> However I still don’t think software houses can afford to offer open ended
> bug fixes in the general case. Damage control on an abomination like Delphi
> 8/2005 is one thing but saying anyone using an old version of your product
> should get bug fixes forever more at no cost is just not a sustainable
> business model. I don’t know of any software companies that will do it – as
> some have pointed out even Microsoft won’t do it beyond a certain point and
> they have a far more profitable business than any other software company.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> David.
>
>
>
> *From:* delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz]
> *On Behalf Of *Paul A Norman
> *Sent:* Sunday, 20 September 2009 5:53 p.m.
> *To:* NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
> *Subject:* Re: [DUG] A change in upgrade policy coming from Embarcadero
>
>
>
> "open ended bug fixes " 2009/9/19 David Brennan <
> dugdavid at dbsolutions.co.nz>
>
> Dear David,
>
>
>
> When we talk about D8 and especially 2005 we are not talking about minor
> matters.
>
>
>
> Others in the past have listed what does not work, the list is not too
> cool.
>
>
>
> What needs to be realised here is that there is a very big difference
> between "bugs" than may be a little annoying to some one, and things that
> are actually fundamental to the application's operation. They are not "bugs"
> but I believe misdemeanors :-)
>
>
>
> If a 'bug' actually stops the application operating as it shuld in any
> significant way it may in my opinion fall fowl of Lord Deninnigs famous
> judgement onn when is a car bought under contract, not a car? (More below)
>
>
>
> Developers need to keep to very high standard in this, if for no other
> reason than that if commercial resentent levels rise to high in the broader
> community with developer's attitudes, regualtion will follow. It is already
> being considered in some quarters.
>
>
>
> Regulation will not be nice.
>
>
>
> Seek legal advice on any and all of the following points of my personal
> opinion.
>
>
>
> At present the general provisions regulating the industry I believe are the
> Fair Trading Act, Common Law of Torts and a few Absolute liabilities.
>
>
>
> Absolute liabilities are things contained in Statute or if you like also
> those Universal moral principles of duty of care.
>
>
>
> For example if one designs a computer application say for the operation of
> lifts, and people are trapped and injured or even die becasue it is later
> determined by a competent tribunal that one failed to develop the
> application using the genreal standards of care and diligence that a
> developer should use, it is even possible in some juristdictions that the
> developer could be found guilty of culpible homicide - man slaughter!
>
>
>
> In NZ the equivalent commonly known scenario was where previously mechanics
> have been found guilty for things that they missed during WOF inspections of
> vehicles where injury or death has resulted.   Not becasue they mised the
> items but because it could be demonstrated that they had not exercised in
> this case an absolute duty of care in their work.
>
>
>
> The standard is not always simpolt that there is a problem, but the nature
> of the problem.
>
>
>
> In software ddevelopment I would submit that if your client wants to use
> your software for an uninteded or unenvisaged purpose at the time of design
> brief, and this breaks your application, then the developoer maybe should
> rightly feel indignent that the problem is laid at their door.  And maybe
> could expect to charge out to make the new use of the application work.
>
>
>
> If however a period of time elapses before it becomes apparent that some
> proscribed feature of the software as brieefed and paid for does not
> function properly, than no matter what periods of testing or due diligence
> my be inserted in the contract the developoer may find himself liable for
> soemthing, and the amount may increase with time the more he fights it.
>
>
>
> You can not always contract out of established law.  Often you can not at
> all contract out of law.
>
>
>
> The reason is that one is subject to the Sovereign power of the
> jurisdiction you are operating in.  And contracts made under that
> jurisdiction can not contravene the determinations of that jurisdiction.
> Unless there is specific provision to do os.
>
>
>
> In other words in NZ there are provisoins of the Fair Trading Act that can
> not be contracted out of.
>
>
>
> As a matter  of public policy, this helps prevent any form of commercial or
> other duress during treating to contract.
>
>
>
> Now be careful in saying that a licanse is not the same as ownership.
>
>
>
> Truly it is not, but if you take money for it, more and more legislators
> and  courts all over the world are starting to say that there are
> responsabilites on the person who receives the money to give value.
>
>
>
> In common law there are lessor duties of care that people can rely on even
> in an contract situation.
>
>
>
> Lord Denig found that even though the man who bought a car was bound bby
> contract to pay for the car, because the car was defiecent in several ways
> from what a reasonible man might expect a car to be and do -- legally it was
> not a car!  So he granted the man relief.
>
>
>
> If your application fails to meet certain requiremetns of your contract
> formal or implied, or shows that you have not designed it with the
> reasonible care that a resaonible person should do so as a developer, then
> you may get a nasty surprise if you don;t want to put it right!
>
>
>
> I wholoehearetadly belive that D.2005 is headed that way.  Even the service
> pack three doesn't work on some people's machines as a known issue!  It
> doesn't on my main one. F1 gives no help at all let alone the inadequate
> help it gives on the other machine I sue.  I can not cut copy ot paste in
> the Form Designer .. I could go on! but I won't bore you, hte issues are
> well established else where.
>
>
>
> So where does E satnd? In my view they bought a franchise - and nneed to
> fix the elkements of the franchise that they want to make money out of.
> Does E have any liability to licensees under the franchise?
>
>
>
> Legal, moral, practical? Yes beyond doubt.
>
>
>
> But most importantly commonsense wise they have obligations.
>
>
>
> We are people who want to get on with each other.
>
>
>
> E and their staff want to feel that they are acting in a caring way towards
> their clients - just as people.
>
>
>
> Saying it is business and therefore different rules apply, doesn't cut it
> any more - its casued too many problems and is a failed philosophy.
>
>
>
> Now when you buy a franchise or equivalent - you can't say I am only
> responsible for the bits I like, or which will give us a qucik cash fix.
>
>
>
> You need to act responsabily accross the board and deal with things as they
> are, not as they would wish them to be.
>
>
>
> Isn't the good price E is rumoured to have got D for, going to reflect the
> issues of D that B had to concede sale price over?
>
>
>
> And therefore does that not mean that E have been compensated already for
> the D.8 D.2005 liability?
>
>
>
> So come on E you've had your financial compensation for the D.8 D.2005
> problems, pass some on and help us up!
>
>
>
> And as for the D.3 -> upgrade issue surely here again commonsense comes
> into play ... Developers are people don't be too quick to play with their
> minds like this.
>
>
>
> The franchise has certain groundrules we bought our licenses on certain
> understandings, you bought the franchise on those understandings, change it
> to improve the experiences of the Licenses hoders not to remove provisions.
>
>
>
> Put some real incentive in there, and as well leave the dooor open!
>
>
>
> Seek legal advice on any and all of the above points of my personal
> opinion.
>
>
>
> paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
> Post: delphi at delphi.org.nz
> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with Subject:
> unsubscribe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.123.net.nz/pipermail/delphi/attachments/20090921/ab2dc1f3/attachment-0001.html