> > It's an old saying that monopolies don't have to apologise to their > > customers. However, when competition does exist, it is a bad move to > > alienate your customers, and when competition doesn't exist (or is weak), > > bad attitudes can result in customers taking their complaints to a > > regulatory agency. And some times, in some places, these agencies kick > a*** > > And some times, in some places, these agencies kiss a**. I am referring to > U.S. Dept. of Justice vs. Microsoft, of course. > > And some times, in some places, the agencies kick a**, but the enforcee has > their a** covered with titanium/kevlar armor with case-hardened steel > spikes. I am referring to the U.S. vs. Exxon Valdez case where the big > punitive fine was overtuned on appeal. How much taxpayer money did the U.S. > gov't waste letting that one get overturned? > > What's this got to do with Protel? We should not rely solely on law or > threat of law enforcement to get what is fair. As time goes on, governments > everywhere are becoming more and more hijacked by big business special > interests. We users need to do what we can to protect ourselves from unfair > practices, because government action is always slow, expensive, and > unreliable.
Yes, there is a lot to be said for turning to the government as a last resort, rather than in the first instance. And I would concur that the phenonomen of governments being hijacked by vested interests is not confined to the USA. I lived in New Zealand up until a bit less than three years ago, but I have still been keeping up with much of what has been happening there. Just during the weekend just passed, I think I finally figured out why one organisation there has been so keen to dump a certain service (which is not profitable, but probably would be, had it been promoted with that objective in mind). If my hunch is correct, taxpayers have the potential to be considerably out of pocket, which is all the more insulting given that two of its current major shareholders are renown for regarding their fiscal obligations as being voluntary in nature. That corporation hires the services of a certain spin-doctor, who just happens to also provide such services for the current leader of the Opposition. (And his political party is chaired by yet another spin-doctor, whose actions while working for those two parasites were regarded as so reprehensible by the professional body for the PR business that she was officially censured by this (not that that seems to have had a detrimental impact upon her employability).) If my hunch is correct, there are detrimental implications for the region which that individual represents (and regardless of whether taxpayers in general end up out of pocket or otherwise). However, he has previously/already made it clear that he is untroubled by such considerations, or at the very least is happy to cut off his nose to spite his face. > That means demanding that software work properly, service > packs remain available, and seriously considering alternatives where they > exist. Supporting each other when the software vendor ceases support. And > making sure the software vendor knows what we think! > > Ivan Baggett Agreed, and some. Given that a SP is no use by itself (i.e. without a copy of the software for which it is a SP), I don't see any reason why Protel users can't provide these to one another, or at least whenever these cannot be downloaded from Protel's website (or otherwise acquired from Altium). Even though Altium presumably would prefer that users update to the current version of Protel, the older versions don't have an expiry date, so anyone who wants/prefers/needs to continue to use these should be able to do so with whichever SPs were released for them. (I did in fact send a copy of SP1 for Client3 myself, but my associated email message was not delivered because the attached file was executable in nature; before I got around to resending that file enclosed within a Zip file, someone else did so instead.) It will be interesting to see whether Phoenix (the next major version of Protel) adds a (Boolean) "Mirrored" field for Component objects (in PCB files). Personally, I am not enamoured to the alternative scenario of not being able to mirror components at all, but time will tell what happens in that regard (with the other possible scenario being to continue to warn users whenever components are about to be mirrored, as has been provided by SP6 for Protel 99 SE). My vision is that if components still can be mirrored, and a "Mirrored" field is provided, than users will be warned, prior to the generation of Gerber files, if any of the components in the PCB file are detected as being in a mirrored state at the time. Users would also have the capability of being able to produce a report, at any time, as to which components are currently mirrored. The alternative scenario would be to prohibit mirroring of components altogether, but that would mean that the use of the "X" or "Y" key would mirror (most) other objects, but not components, which would be a break from past behaviour. What do others think about this matter? Regards, Geoff Harland. ----------------------------- E-Mail Disclaimer The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are confidential and not for public display. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
