<div>Dear Jeremy,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>When Corel, ourchase a business, a franchise or just a product line they are very generou and for quite a while offer free transfer and support to license holders, I'm sorry that you left it too late to avail yourself of that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you want to suggest that D.2005 isn't really all that bad then do your own research, you'll find yourself howling in the wildnerness.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I doubt that your clinets would agree with this sentiment: "The [application] being slow or using lots of memory and<br>requiring a restart doesn't make it unfit for purpose either. "</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And if you really think that then please consider what such attitudes could do in bringing heavy regulation down on everyone else.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What sort of standard are you talking of here. Delphi is supposed to be the Rolls Royce of IDEs that is why people bought in on its reputation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Where are those ideas comning from?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paul<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2009/9/21 Jeremy North <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeremy.north@gmail.com">jeremy.north@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">People seem to forget that Delphi 8 was .NET only. Which as a "true"<br>product no longer exists. I strongly doubt anyone is using Delphi 8<br>
anymore.<br><br>If Delphi 2005 was so unfit for purpose (which I do not agree with)<br>why didn't you get your money back. Simple as that.<br><br>Delphi 2005 still created binaries for deployment. We used Delphi 2005<br>
for about a year before the D2006 version was released and deployed<br>our software to clients over that period.<br><br>I'm interested in knowing what made Delphi 2005 so unfit for purpose,<br>since I don't use all of the products maybe there was an area or two<br>
are really messed up. The IDE being slow or using lots of memory and<br>requiring a restart doesn't make it unfit for purpose either. So let's<br>see a list of issues with Delphi 2005 on the table. I expect Paul must<br>
have several since he is still using it.<br><br>As for not allowing upgrades from certain versions, well I owned a<br>copy of some slideshow making software (off the shelf). I checked out<br>the website for the latest versions, and corel now own it and I can't<br>
upgrade to the newer version from my version.<br><br>At least you are being told in advance.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br><br>On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:24 AM, David Brennan<br><<a href="mailto:dugdavid@dbsolutions.co.nz">dugdavid@dbsolutions.co.nz</a>> wrote:<br>> Hi Paul,<br>><br>><br>><br>> I agree Delphi 8 and Delphi 2005 were mistakes and arguably not fit for<br>
> purpose. I also agree that no one (ie Borland or Embarcadero) has made good<br>> on that. Excluding them from the upgrade path is very poor, and arguably<br>> users on those versions should be offered a cheaper upgrade if anything.<br>
><br>><br>><br>> However I still don’t think software houses can afford to offer open ended<br>> bug fixes in the general case. Damage control on an abomination like Delphi<br>> 8/2005 is one thing but saying anyone using an old version of your product<br>
> should get bug fixes forever more at no cost is just not a sustainable<br>> business model. I don’t know of any software companies that will do it – as<br>> some have pointed out even Microsoft won’t do it beyond a certain point and<br>
> they have a far more profitable business than any other software company.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Cheers,<br>><br>> David.<br>><br>><br>><br>> From: <a href="mailto:delphi-bounces@delphi.org.nz">delphi-bounces@delphi.org.nz</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:delphi-bounces@delphi.org.nz">delphi-bounces@delphi.org.nz</a>] On<br>
> Behalf Of Paul A Norman<br>> Sent: Sunday, 20 September 2009 5:53 p.m.<br>><br>> To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List<br>> Subject: Re: [DUG] A change in upgrade policy coming from Embarcadero<br>
><br>><br>><br>> "open ended bug fixes " 2009/9/19 David Brennan <<a href="mailto:dugdavid@dbsolutions.co.nz">dugdavid@dbsolutions.co.nz</a>><br>><br>> Dear David,<br>><br>><br>><br>
> When we talk about D8 and especially 2005 we are not talking about minor<br>> matters.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Others in the past have listed what does not work, the list is not too cool.<br>><br>><br>
><br>> What needs to be realised here is that there is a very big difference<br>> between "bugs" than may be a little annoying to some one, and things that<br>> are actually fundamental to the application's operation. They are not "bugs"<br>
> but I believe misdemeanors :-)<br>><br>><br>><br>> If a 'bug' actually stops the application operating as it shuld in any<br>> significant way it may in my opinion fall fowl of Lord Deninnigs famous<br>
> judgement onn when is a car bought under contract, not a car? (More below)<br>><br>><br>><br>> Developers need to keep to very high standard in this, if for no other<br>> reason than that if commercial resentent levels rise to high in the broader<br>
> community with developer's attitudes, regualtion will follow. It is already<br>> being considered in some quarters.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Regulation will not be nice.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Seek legal advice on any and all of the following points of my personal<br>
> opinion.<br>><br>><br>><br>> At present the general provisions regulating the industry I believe are the<br>> Fair Trading Act, Common Law of Torts and a few Absolute liabilities.<br>><br>><br>><br>
> Absolute liabilities are things contained in Statute or if you like also<br>> those Universal moral principles of duty of care.<br>><br>><br>><br>> For example if one designs a computer application say for the operation of<br>
> lifts, and people are trapped and injured or even die becasue it is later<br>> determined by a competent tribunal that one failed to develop the<br>> application using the genreal standards of care and diligence that a<br>
> developer should use, it is even possible in some juristdictions that the<br>> developer could be found guilty of culpible homicide - man slaughter!<br>><br>><br>><br>> In NZ the equivalent commonly known scenario was where previously mechanics<br>
> have been found guilty for things that they missed during WOF inspections of<br>> vehicles where injury or death has resulted. Not becasue they mised the<br>> items but because it could be demonstrated that they had not exercised in<br>
> this case an absolute duty of care in their work.<br>><br>><br>><br>> The standard is not always simpolt that there is a problem, but the nature<br>> of the problem.<br>><br>><br>><br>> In software ddevelopment I would submit that if your client wants to use<br>
> your software for an uninteded or unenvisaged purpose at the time of design<br>> brief, and this breaks your application, then the developoer maybe should<br>> rightly feel indignent that the problem is laid at their door. And maybe<br>
> could expect to charge out to make the new use of the application work.<br>><br>><br>><br>> If however a period of time elapses before it becomes apparent that some<br>> proscribed feature of the software as brieefed and paid for does not<br>
> function properly, than no matter what periods of testing or due diligence<br>> my be inserted in the contract the developoer may find himself liable for<br>> soemthing, and the amount may increase with time the more he fights it.<br>
><br>><br>><br>> You can not always contract out of established law. Often you can not at<br>> all contract out of law.<br>><br>><br>><br>> The reason is that one is subject to the Sovereign power of the jurisdiction<br>
> you are operating in. And contracts made under that jurisdiction can not<br>> contravene the determinations of that jurisdiction. Unless there is specific<br>> provision to do os.<br>><br>><br>><br>> In other words in NZ there are provisoins of the Fair Trading Act that can<br>
> not be contracted out of.<br>><br>><br>><br>> As a matter of public policy, this helps prevent any form of commercial or<br>> other duress during treating to contract.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Now be careful in saying that a licanse is not the same as ownership.<br>
><br>><br>><br>> Truly it is not, but if you take money for it, more and more legislators and<br>> courts all over the world are starting to say that there are<br>> responsabilites on the person who receives the money to give value.<br>
><br>><br>><br>> In common law there are lessor duties of care that people can rely on even<br>> in an contract situation.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Lord Denig found that even though the man who bought a car was bound bby<br>
> contract to pay for the car, because the car was defiecent in several ways<br>> from what a reasonible man might expect a car to be and do -- legally it was<br>> not a car! So he granted the man relief.<br>><br>
><br>><br>> If your application fails to meet certain requiremetns of your contract<br>> formal or implied, or shows that you have not designed it with the<br>> reasonible care that a resaonible person should do so as a developer, then<br>
> you may get a nasty surprise if you don;t want to put it right!<br>><br>><br>><br>> I wholoehearetadly belive that D.2005 is headed that way. Even the service<br>> pack three doesn't work on some people's machines as a known issue! It<br>
> doesn't on my main one. F1 gives no help at all let alone the inadequate<br>> help it gives on the other machine I sue. I can not cut copy ot paste in<br>> the Form Designer .. I could go on! but I won't bore you, hte issues are<br>
> well established else where.<br>><br>><br>><br>> So where does E satnd? In my view they bought a franchise - and nneed to fix<br>> the elkements of the franchise that they want to make money out of. Does E<br>
> have any liability to licensees under the franchise?<br>><br>><br>><br>> Legal, moral, practical? Yes beyond doubt.<br>><br>><br>><br>> But most importantly commonsense wise they have obligations.<br>
><br>><br>><br>> We are people who want to get on with each other.<br>><br>><br>><br>> E and their staff want to feel that they are acting in a caring way towards<br>> their clients - just as people.<br>
><br>><br>><br>> Saying it is business and therefore different rules apply, doesn't cut it<br>> any more - its casued too many problems and is a failed philosophy.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Now when you buy a franchise or equivalent - you can't say I am only<br>
> responsible for the bits I like, or which will give us a qucik cash fix.<br>><br>><br>><br>> You need to act responsabily accross the board and deal with things as they<br>> are, not as they would wish them to be.<br>
><br>><br>><br>> Isn't the good price E is rumoured to have got D for, going to reflect the<br>> issues of D that B had to concede sale price over?<br>><br>><br>><br>> And therefore does that not mean that E have been compensated already for<br>
> the D.8 D.2005 liability?<br>><br>><br>><br>> So come on E you've had your financial compensation for the D.8 D.2005<br>> problems, pass some on and help us up!<br>><br>><br>><br>> And as for the D.3 -> upgrade issue surely here again commonsense comes into<br>
> play ... Developers are people don't be too quick to play with their minds<br>> like this.<br>><br>><br>><br>> The franchise has certain groundrules we bought our licenses on certain<br>> understandings, you bought the franchise on those understandings, change it<br>
> to improve the experiences of the Licenses hoders not to remove provisions.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Put some real incentive in there, and as well leave the dooor open!<br>><br>><br>><br>> Seek legal advice on any and all of the above points of my personal opinion.<br>
><br>><br>><br>> paul<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br></div></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list<br>> Post: <a href="mailto:delphi@delphi.org.nz">delphi@delphi.org.nz</a><br>> Admin: <a href="http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi" target="_blank">http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi</a><br>
> Unsubscribe: send an email to <a href="mailto:delphi-request@delphi.org.nz">delphi-request@delphi.org.nz</a> with Subject:<br>> unsubscribe<br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list<br>
Post: <a href="mailto:delphi@delphi.org.nz">delphi@delphi.org.nz</a><br>Admin: <a href="http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi" target="_blank">http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi</a><br>Unsubscribe: send an email to <a href="mailto:delphi-request@delphi.org.nz">delphi-request@delphi.org.nz</a> with Subject: unsubscribe<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>