And I thought I was ranting :) ... On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Ken Dibble <[email protected]> wrote: > > Still, I continue to refuse to accept the notion that software is a service > that the service provider is allowed to change without my permission, and > then stand there with a mercenary smirk and tell me I will really be better > off if I buy his latest and greatest, even if his latest and greatest is > slower, or harder to use, or less reliable than what I had before. >
I think when Rick Strahl or Doug Hennig want me to pay for an upgrade or sign up for an annual support contract, it's much more of a situation where I'm putting food on their table or paying for new windsurfing gear, iow, paying them for their time, than when I'm forced to pay far more for far less from a faceless corporation, so I see this as a spectrum of commercial relationships ranging from mutually-beneficial to predatory. And the question of whether you "have to" upgrade certainly has an effect on that. > The guy who invented the jackhammer has no right to break my hammer and > force me to buy a jackhammer, even if the jackhammer, and subtle variations > on it, is the only thing he is capable of inventing for the rest of his > life, or the life of his company, and the only way he can continue to feed > himself and his stockholders is to take my stuff that I paid him for away > from me and force me to buy something else. I think a lot of the commercial OS vendors (MS, Apple, Google/Android) have a hard sell. They want to ship bug fixes and new features on their schedules and reduce their support costs, but that's not always at the customer's convenience. (Like, almost never.) Linux/BSD et al suffers from the same thing, though: you can stick with the old version, but you're gonna run into trouble with support and backported fixes, or you can jump into the new versions and struggle with the "new-and-improved" features that break your software or force you to learn new stuff (me, struggling with firewalld integration with fail2ban, and some new SNI-SSL features I'm wrestling with). Sometimes it seems like a "You can pay us now or you can pay us later" deal. Change is what we're stuck coping with. > In other words, pffffffft on yer EULA. > > Ken Dibble > www.stic-cil.org > Always appreciate your perspective, Ken. And I don't disagree with much of the sentiment. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4uO=pwqznhunr9sv25+3_bc4e9h9xw3wyw9-2y10sy...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
