Because they want to fix bugs in their product?
Really I don't comprehend the line of reasoning that says
1. Our product is defective, and here is a reported defect
2. Support dollars go for *support* not fixing our defected product
3. We won't fix defects unless someone is paying for *support*

Support is not bug fixes.
If your product has community-perceived *bugs*, then the "dollars" to fix those 
comes from your *general* fund, not our support dollars.




-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Wyatt <>
To: 'U2 Users List' <>
Sent: Fri, Aug 31, 2012 10:13 am
Subject: Re: [U2] U2 Bug reporting / list monitoring

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Wjhonson
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [U2] U2 Bug reporting / list monitoring

Not support though.  Bugs.
In my book, they are opposite ends of the spectrum.
And a company that ignores bug reports because they don't come through
"approved" channels is heading in the direction of Netscape and Liquid

I agree there are consultants who know tricks and make customers pay for not
only their knowledge of those tricks, but the hours it took them, perhaps
unpaid, to acquire that knowledge.  But to make the 20th customer pay the
same hours as the 19th customer did, is really a bit shocking.

That *some* people in the professional services world, wish that user groups
didn't exist, so they could keep charging high prices for simple
questions... is perhaps too bad on them.
In my opinion, you just cannot be this naïve (or is it demanding?).

OpenSource is the only arena that comes to mind where this may happen; after
all, they have no other feedback channel!
Even in this arena, just because you say you have a problem doesn’t mean
that you get a reply, or that your potential "bug" may eventually be

A potential exception is OpenQM, which offers paid and free versions;
however, I'm not sure how they handle the "free" side of the product, and
whether forum discussions regarding potential bugs has resulted in product
changes for both the free and paid versions... Neither am I familiar with
their funding paradigm...

If you want bugs fixed on a paid-for product that offers support contracts,
buy a support contract. Report the bugs through proper channels.

Bugs have to be vetted, which costs someone money.
Just because you can reproduce the bug at will on your system doesn’t mean
that it happens to everyone running the product.
Just because more than 1 person in this group may be able to reproduce the
bug for you when done precisely as you document it does not mean there is a
bug in the product.
Just because more than 1 person in this group may be able to reproduce the
bug for you when done precisely as you document it does not mean that
everyone running the same environment can.
Just because you "mention" a potential bug in a group posting but are
unwilling to report it through proper channels tells me (if I were a vendor)
that the problem is very minor and not worth my time or effort (if I were
the vendor) to address it further.

Why would Rocket expend yours, mine, and anyone else's support contract $$$
on potentially supporting/vetting/helping users not entitled (not paying
for) such support/vetting/helping?
What is the take-away when you get a response back from group members that
doing it precisely your way fails, but doing it this other way does not - do
you or do you not have a potential bug?
And why should members of this group be asked to vet your issue(s), who
(likely) are being paid to do other things for their employer, or, in the
case of consultants, another customer?

U2-Users mailing list

U2-Users mailing list

Reply via email to