We're looking for someone to provide on-going development for our
online recipe costing/ menu management application MyRecipes -
myrecipes.co.nz
- Have a good amount of experience with PHP
- Have experience with MySQL
- Have a decent understanding of HTML CSS
- Have some experience with
Hi all,
I'm looking for experiences with the following problem:
we're distributing most of our code under open source licences to clients
and I wonder if anyone has had experiences with the following scenario:
- Project get developed and delivered under open source licence to client on
clients
Hi guys,
I think, (and I haven't had any issues like this as I haven't done
freelance/web work in a long time!) your problem is that this is a
SUBSEQUENT maintenance stage. You have already deployed the original
software to the clients server, so they feel that if they didn't ask for the
This claptrap is why I.T people are not widely trusted.
If the product you supply is broken, fix it and stop making excuses or trying
to wriggle out.
I am sure if you went and bought a TV set from Noel Leeming, and it didn't
work properly, you would not be in the mood to discuss service
I.T people are not widely trusted
Sorry I but really don't agree with that statement at all.
Additionally, as you are someone who has trusted this mailing list
full of I.T. people to provide you with free help on many occasions
instead of paying someone to do the work it's actually a bit
On Jul 27, 11:36 am, Michael ph...@nettrust.co.nz wrote:
If the product you supply is broken, fix it and stop making excuses or trying
to wriggle out.
I am sure if you went and bought a TV set from Noel Leeming, and it didn't
work properly, you would not be in the mood to discuss service
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:46:01 Grant Paton-Simpson wrote:
Hi Michael,
As long as the purchaser is willing to pay more up-front then that
sounds reasonable. With complex systems there is always an element of
risk - the issue is who carries that risk. One arrangement might be for
the
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:52:05 Keri Henare wrote:
I.T people are not widely trusted
Sorry I but really don't agree with that statement at all.
Web developers reputation in the wider world is better then used car dealers,
but not as good as it should be.
The average quality has improved a bit
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:57:12 Hamish Campbell wrote:
They are not interested in open source or any other geek lingo.
But this group is.
Which is fine though I doubt the customer is interested in it becoming their
problem (ie: part of the agreement) and this is what I am obviously referring
Michael, the issue here is that the customers idea of 'didn't work
properly' is open to interpretation. A television has a list of defined
features, and these features are homogeneous across the same models.
Any custom development that is built to specifications has no comparison
product, the
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:57:12 Hamish Campbell wrote:
They are not interested in open source or any other geek lingo.
But this group is.
Which is fine though I doubt the customer is interested in it
becoming their
problem (ie: part of the agreement) and this is what I am obviously
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:52:05 Keri Henare wrote:
I.T people are not widely trusted
Sorry I but really don't agree with that statement at all.
Web developers reputation in the wider world is better then used car
dealers,
but not as good as it should be.
Even God's reputation isn't as
I'm kind of thinking the same
If you despise and do not trust IT people (and most of us in this
mailing list would fall under IT people). Then why are you still
asking for help in the mailing list? You're tainting the reputation of
the group that often help you (often if not always, for free!).
Is it just me, or did this thread take about 30 seconds to shoot straight OT?
Micheal, I don't think Jochen provided enough detail for you to give an opinion
on the nature and reason for the work done, nor to give an analogy of a defuct
TV. For all you know this was a feature request that the
Hi Jochen,
I don't have specific advice in your situation, but I did used to
state in my contract an explicit testing period of all software before
final sign-off. I made this explicit that this was where the customer
used the apps and found as many of the major errors and problems as
possible.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:48:31 Aaron Cooper wrote:
Micheal, I don't think Jochen provided enough detail for you to give an
opinion on the nature and reason for the work done, nor to give an analogy
of a defuct TV. For all you know this was a feature request that the client
doesn't think they
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:00:58 Hamish Campbell wrote:
(goes even further OT): So... smart developers should not attempt
complex projects because customers are unable to take on any of the
associated risk since they're incapable of understanding the
implications of their requirements?
Hi all,
first of all thank you for the great response and I would like to apologise
that I was not near the computer to get this topic back on track.
My question here is not related to a dispute of the original project -
please assume that this is approved and happily paid for. For later
Hi Gavin,
I hope you've had a good response.
Perhaps you could clarify what the nature of the ongoing development work
will be - will it be a set number of hours per week, a set time
availability, or will it be handled on an hourly rate case-by-case basis?
Are you anticipating that you'll need a
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Paul Bennett family.benn...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Gavin,
I hope you've had a good response.
Perhaps you could clarify what the nature of the ongoing development work
will be - will it be a set number of hours per week, a set time
availability, or will
This is the crux of what I'm asking here. Am I not violating the GPL if I
make source code inaccessible that has already been distributed.
Interesting point. I would just 'undistribute' it anyway (assuming
you still can). No one is going to sue you for doing that. You could
argue that it is
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Kent Parker k...@passingphase.co.nzwrote:
This is the crux of what I'm asking here. Am I not violating the GPL if I
make source code inaccessible that has already been distributed.
Interesting point. I would just 'undistribute' it anyway (assuming
So you are saying that it is too late and the client will already have
a copy of the new scripts?
On Jul 27, 2:44 pm, Jochen Daum j...@automatem.co.nz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Kent Parker k...@passingphase.co.nzwrote:
This is the crux of what I'm asking here. Am I not
/3425509.181107
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4280 (20090726) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
NZ PHP Users Group: http
24 matches
Mail list logo
