Ah, the issues of old. Business ethics would mandate all bug
fix/tweak/minor improvement updates be free, while feature upgrades
(including at least three new major features) may or may not require a
new upgrade license (which should be perhaps 25% of the software's
retail cost). Of course,
Moin, Geoff,
Where did you read this? On this page it says Next feature update
included:
I quoted the sentence from the license eMail I got from Runrev, so I
consider it official, no matter what the website says ;-)
Marc Albrecht
A.C.T. / level-2
Glinder Str. 2
27432 Ebersdorf
Deutschland
Tel.
Never having purchased a copy of studio, I hadn't seen that email ;-)
regards,
Geoff Canyon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 14, 2004, at 1:45 AM, A.C.T. wrote:
Moin, Geoff,
Where did you read this? On this page it says Next feature update
included:
I quoted the sentence from the license eMail I got
On 3/14/04 1:17 AM, j wrote:
If the third place number indicates bug fixes or minor changes (2.1.x),
shouldn't anyone who purchased 2.1.2 receive 2.1.4even up to 2.1.9for
free? The numbering scheme would indicate they are all bug fix
updates. One would think that my included free upgrade
Moin, Jacqueline,
One question to consider, though, is how many free updates the company
can provide and still expect to stay afloat financially. Demanding
unlimited free updates may not work to our advantage in the long run.
If you have followed the discussion you may have noticed that updates
On Sunday, March 14, 2004, at 12:19 PM, A.C.T. wrote:
If you have followed the discussion you may have noticed that
updates are considered bug fixes by most participiants within this
discussion, while upgrades are considered feature enhancements
(meaning NEW features).
Bugfixes have to be free
Yes. So long as customers are still using 9.1.1, there is an implicit
obligation to fix bugs therein. Once a product is purchased, the
manufacturer has an implicit obligation to the purchaser to ensure that
it functions as advertised. Simply releasing a new version does not
relieve one of
Moin, Dar,
Are you suggesting that there be versions branch for every upgrade, that
is, that bugs found for 9.1.1 be fixed even after the company has
released 10.0.0?
I am afraid this is leading into a dead cycle.
I am not Runrev. I cannot tell Runrev how to handle their versioning.
All I can
On 3/14/04 1:53 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:
Yes. So long as customers are still using 9.1.1, there is an implicit
obligation to fix bugs therein. Once a product is purchased, the
manufacturer has an implicit obligation to the purchaser to ensure that
it functions as advertised. Simply
If, in fact, 8.6 still has bugs which prevent it from functioning _as
advertised_, probably yes. But at this point, this is pretty unlikely
since the people who continue to use it are likely doing so because it
has proved stable enough and full-featured enough to meet their needs.
I think the
On Mar 14, 2004, at 12:14 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 3/14/04 1:53 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:
Yes. So long as customers are still using 9.1.1, there is an
implicit obligation to fix bugs therein. Once a product is
purchased, the manufacturer has an implicit obligation to the
purchaser to
Hi Marian,
Using your logic, I should be able to demand Adobe fix my unresolved
bugs in Photoshop 5,6, and 7? I would rather them fixed than upgrade to
the latest version.
Frankly, I'm not aware of any small software company who continues to
release bug fixes for older versions of their
On 3/14/04 1:53 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:
Yes. So long as customers are still using 9.1.1, there is an
implicit obligation to fix bugs therein. Once a product is
purchased, the manufacturer has an implicit obligation to the
purchaser to ensure that it functions as advertised. Simply
On Sunday, March 14, 2004, at 12:53 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:
Are you suggesting that if I buy 9.1.1 today and you release 10.0
tomorrow that you have no obligation whatsoever to me to ensure that
9.1.1 meets the specifications you set out for it , specifications
upon which I based my
On Sunday, March 14, 2004, at 12:19 PM, A.C.T. wrote:
If you have followed the discussion you may have noticed that
updates are considered bug fixes by most participiants within this
discussion, while upgrades are considered feature enhancements
(meaning NEW features).
Bugfixes have to be free
Ayup. It happens but that isn't necessarily the right way to do
things. For example, contractors fail to fix warranty items on new
homes all the time, claiming they are not defects and knowing that most
people will not take the time to pursue them. It's a fact of life, but
that doesn't make
A better comparison is to other applications. For how long after
Office 2003 or Office 2004 for Mac came out did Microsoft continue to
release bug fixes for the previous versions? In my experience, the
answer has been, about ten seconds.
I'm cringing at jumping into this thread, because I DO
On Mar 14, 2004, at 4:02 PM, Brian Yennie wrote:
I'm cringing at jumping into this thread, because I DO NOT think
RunRev has exactly been guilty of poor support or response to bugs.
HOWEVER, I can't quite agree with the Office OR OS comparisons. Both
are consumer products, not developer
I agree with you about RunRev's support and also cringe about jumping
in but I think the second comment deserves response because I think
this is somewhat behind some of the carping:
You may wish they were more bug free but in fact developer products
are more complicated and function at lower
On 15/03/2004, at 8:55, someone whom I am not attacking personally
wrote:
Ayup. It happens but that isn't necessarily the right way to do
things. For example, contractors fail to fix warranty items on new
homes all the time, claiming they are not defects and knowing that
most people will not
The industry practice and RunRev policy of three-part changes
(bug/minor/major) and associated pricing policies (none/small/large)
is well established and of minor interest unless someone has a unique
and commercially viable proposal which they should then put straight
to Kevin Miller anyway.
So, by this logic, Apple should still be releasing bug fixes for OS
8.6? Lots of people still use it.
If Apple hasn't squashed all the bugs in 8.6 by now, then shame on
them! Bugs need to be fixed ASAP, and once they are fixed, they are
fixed. It is not as if new 8.6 bugs would begin to
We may be straying to far from the topic at hand here (RR)...
Most software licenses these days do not have 'bug-free' clauses.
Typically, you purchase the software 'as is.'
But developers must be very careful about this, or be left to the
mercies of the judiciary. Suppose I sell a product
I have been wondering about this as well, having just gotten a studio
license with 2.12 and finding out that the majority of the bug database
is scheduled two updates away and only being entitled to one.
On Mar 12, 2004, at 7:24 AM, Frank Leahy wrote:
On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 12:24 PM,
Ah, the issues of old. Business ethics would mandate all bug
fix/tweak/minor improvement updates be free, while feature upgrades
(including at least three new major features) may or may not require a
new upgrade license (which should be perhaps 25% of the software's
retail cost). Of course,
Hi,
I have been wondering about this as well, having just gotten a studio
license with 2.12 and finding out that the majority of the bug database
is scheduled two updates away and only being entitled to one.
Of course this was an issue for me as well before I decided to support
the company by
On Mar 13, 2004, at 11:25 AM, A.C.T. wrote:
So I am very sure that Runrev will behave like most software companies
(the so called evil ones included) and hand out bugfixes free of
charge. No computer software is free of bugs and as a customer AND
developer I am absolutely sure that Runrev will
On 3/13/04 5:53 PM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
Where did you read this? On this page it says Next feature update
included:
http://www.runrev.com/Revolution1/licensing1.html
The form letter that customers get after purchase says what is quoted;
that is, the user is entitled to one upgrade. The intent
There is no announced date, but 2.2 is in public beta now.
regards,
Geoff Canyon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 13, 2004, at 4:04 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:
And what's the target release date for 2.2, pray tell? I like the
sound a a vastly improved distribution builder myself!
You could update from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3 for free, no questions asked. You
could probably update from 2.1.2 to 2.1.4 if you contacted the company
and asked. You might be able to update from 2.1.2 to 2.2 for free,
depending on when you purchased 2.1.2.
If the third place number indicates bug fixes
Cool. Lookin forward to it.
M
On Mar 14, 2004, at 1:51 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
There is no announced date, but 2.2 is in public beta now.
regards,
Geoff Canyon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 13, 2004, at 4:04 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:
And what's the target release date for 2.2, pray tell? I like
31 matches
Mail list logo
