From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Subject: Re: gnat-3.10 Date: 1997/06/18 Message-ID: <5o8e2h$q5t$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 249303433 References: <5o480g$tqk$3@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >Yes, sometimes informal Usenet support can be quite effective, but on the >other hand, it can sometimes be highly unreliable. In particular, people >giving free support can quite reasonably take the attitude that you should >spend a lot of your time creating an absolutely clear example, which can be >a very time consuing excercise. Moreover, the emphasis in such support is to improve the product, not solve the user's problem. So if a report of a bug is made and the bug has already been fixed in the development sources, the person is either told that or does not receive a response since their bug report is no longer "useful". But if they were a customer of a commercial maintainer of the software, they would have to receive a patch unless it was possible to make that new version available to them.