Hi Mike, I'll keep this short. Using your analogy:
Yes, Ford will recall its cars if there's a problem. But, if GM bought the Mustang in 2003, who would be responsible to recall the car if a 97 Mustang has a faulty radiator hose? Ford, or GM? The auto industry has a stature of limitations, which is 5 years in the case of a car model being discontinued. So, if your 97 Mustang was faulty, you either have to buy a new Mustang or a new radiator hose right? Since the I.T. industry is compared to dog years, then your version of Tango is in fact 21 years out of date! I say, if you can't afford the new Mustang, or just love the 97 model, then buy your radiator hose which solves your problem. Best Regards, Rick > Hello Rick, > > Thank you for your response. However, with all due respect, I have to > disagree. > > The main reason is that by publishing this vulnerability With made my system > a target for possible hackers. Now I MUST buy protection (sounds like 1930s > Chicago). > Please notice that I have never said With has to fix the Tango "bugs". A > vulnerability is not only a bug, but a software condition that can > potentially break up a business, based on running that software application. > With of course is in its rights not to develop patches for something is not > responsible for. But then I do not understand their position in protecting a > product they do not want to have anything to do with. Remember this thread > started when somebody asked about availability to a Tango Mac version of old > software. > So, what is it? Is With interested or not interested in previous versions of > Tango? > Besides, after all, it seems they are the only ones in the position to > correct the code, since they have it. And incidentally I do not believe it > is very difficult to do so; probably just a matter of hours. At this point I > am sure that not providing a fix is basically a marketing decision. > > How do companies survive by providing service-packs? By also establishing a > good relationship with their customers. > In this case it is definitely more likely that a customer of the Tango > product would upgrade or buy a Witango product, then a user of a different > product (like ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion). So good relationship with very likely > customers is essential. As far as I know, I would have felt very much > obliged if With offered a free fix, or even a fix for a nominal charge, and > I know for sure, since I like so much this product, I would have bought the > upgrade as soon as I would have needed it. > As far as I understand this business, bug fixes and especially > VULNERABILITIES should be offered free, and new features (upgrades) should > be offered at a cost. Bugs that the manufacturer acknowledges prior to the > purchase do not even need to be offered for free. In other words provide me > with the quality that you promised. > And yes, I believe this is the standard business practice, as nowadays in > use by main software manufacturers. And not only software manufacturers. For > a better comparison, if Ford finds the breaking system does not work to one > of their models -something I would call a major vulnerability- they would > immediately offer a fix at their own cost. It has happened many times over. > Unfortunately there are exceptions, as you noted. > > > Mike Bravu. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: Tango 2000 for Mac needed > > > > Hey Mike, > > First of all, you must remember that you don't really own the software. You > have a license to use the software. This is standard across the software > industry. > > > >BTW: I own Tango 2000/SP1 for Windows, and I am not encouraging anybody to > >resort to piracy. I cannot agree with With trying to exercise claims to > >previous versions of Tango and, at the same time, no longer supporting > >Tango. > > Tango 2000 was released by Pervasive and not With. Therefore, The software > manufacturer in this case does not exist. With Enterprises has version 4.5 > and up. With bought the code from Pervasive to continue on the software, not > make bug fixes to the old Tango. > > > > >The issue of knowing you have a vulnerability in the code to a product > that > >you now own but do not offer a technical solution for a crucial feature is > >very troublesome. Forcing users to upgrade seems to me like blackmail. > What > >choice do we have to keep our applications running? > > It's the same with any software manufacturer. That's what keeps them going. > If the software manufacturers always gave free service packs, the software > manufacturer would go out of business paying the programmers! Eventually, it > becomes less profitable to release service packs for the same version, hence > a new version is released. > > >The software manufacturer has some obligations too. I understand I am not > >entitled at additional features for free, but I definitely am > entitled -for > >free- to corrections to the code for which I paid. After all, you are only > >required to correct you own mistakes. You do have access to the code to be > >corrected, don't you? > > These were Pervasive's mistakes, not With Enterprises' > > >As far as I am concerned, Tango 2000 works fine for what I need, and I do > >not have to upgrade right now, nor do I have the money to spend. But I > MUST > >make sure I am not having known vulnerabilities in the application. My > >business depends on it. > > Then, unfortunately you have to stick with an unsupported product. Tell me, > if you call Microsoft with a Windows ME problem, what's the first thing they > say? Give us your credit card number, and we'll help you. It's the same with > many software companies. At least With is talking with existing Tango 2000 > customers for free and consulting them! > > > > >Now, installing a new upgrade in the production environment is not easy, > >making old code run takes time, effort etc. Based on what I read on this > >list (and beyond the time needed to go > through > >the required reading associated with the adoption of a new version), > Witango > >v5 was not really a smooth sailing. There were problems reported, which > >required time and patience to make the new Witango version run. And if all > >this effort is understandable to reap the benefits of new additional > >features that one might need, it is a possible a waste of time if you do > not > >need them. > >So even if the upgrade was for free, I would always prefer a patch. Am I > >stating the obvious? Providing free patches is standard business practice > >in the software world, isn't it? > > If you can tell me of any application server software that was released with > no bugs, please let me know. Macromedia had to release 4 service packs for > Cold Fusion MX server because of big problems. > > > > >The second point, even more important, is that you want people to contact > >you, "to work something out" (on a case by case basis). Why is that? Why > >don't we have a solution in the open, for everybody to know? I can only > >assume here that people would be offered different prices based on their > >negotiating skills. This it is totally unacceptable. > > It's simple. Individual people have individual needs! It's good customer > service to help someone based upon their individual needs, rather than issue > a policy standard resolution to any problem! I'm sure that With would handle > your problems on an individual basis. > > > > >I am profoundly disappointed by With's lack of candor, understanding and > >support for their customers and, (at best) questionable selling tactics. > >Developing (or inheriting) a good product to sell cannot be cover to poor > >corporate behavior. Sooner or later we'll drop the product. > > Well, if you're a Tango 2000 user, then you're not With Enterprises' > customer! You're Pervasive's customer! > > In a nutshell, I use Ghost by Symantec. I had the last version released by > Byte Interactive which was 5.2. When Symantec bought the technology, did > they give out service packs for free? Heck no! Version 6 was released within > 3 months after they bought it. If you didn't upgrade to version 6 by > Symantec, then they wouldn't even talk to you. It's industry standard! > Become a customer of With Enterprises, and you'll get all the support, > service packs, and bug fixes your heart desires! > > My 5 cents. > > Rick Sanders > > > > >Mike Bravu. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Phil Wade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 1:21 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: Tango 2000 for Mac needed > > > > > >OK it is now time for me to add my 2 cents worth. > > > >1 ... > > > >2 Supply of the Pervasive branded evaluation copy falls under the same > >license issues as the full product and carries the same license with it. > It > >has the same licensing issues, that my support team mentioned earlier, > with > >PopCharts and Data Directs ODBC Manager and drivers. If it is the Mac OS > 9 > >version, the installer is not even licensed to be distributed. > > > >3 Migrating to Witango 5 provides you with several architectural > benefits > >in the server, but it also provides you with the ability to receive bug > >fixes into the future. The Witango 5 code will be maintained well after > the > >v6 server is released this time next year. The Tango 2000 code was > retired > >coming up to 3 years ago and will not have any fixes made to it. The T2K > >server has the cookie buffer overrun issue and there will not be a new > >release of T2K resolving this issue. > > > >4 Work with us and we can work something out. Go outside the channel > and > >our hands are tied. > > > >5 Wayne, if you had contacted us we could have tried to work something > out > >as we have for many other T2K users during their migrations to Witango 5. > >You only work down the road, your in the same timezone and it is only a > >local call, so contact me and we can look at what you are trying to > achieve > >and we can see what we can legally do to help you. > > > >6 ... > >Phil > > > > > > > >On 2/8/03 5:06 PM, "Wayne Irvine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>By you wanting a Tango 2000 server, this means that you won't be > > >>getting it from With Enterprises. Since they are the ones who >>support > >and > develop > > >>the product, they are the ones who are losing out. > > > > > >And ironically the reason I need a second copy is to allow me to > > >evaluate WiTango whilst leaving some sites on an undisturbed box. The > > >evaluation process needs to happen before I spend money on my WiTango > > >license. > > > > > >I will definitely contact you as a 30 day eval license is exactly >what I > >need. > > > > > >Thanks > > > > > >Wayne Irvine > > > > > > > > > Byte Services Pty Ltd > > > http://www.byteserve.com.au/ > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Ph 02 9960 6099 Mob 0409 960 609 Fax 02 9960 6088 > > > > > >_____________________________________________________________________ > > >_ > > >__ > > >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > > > >______________________________________________________________________ > >__ > >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > > >______________________________________________________________________ > >__ > >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > > _________________________________________________________________ > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
