From: matthew_heaney@acm.org (Matthew Heaney)
Subject: Re: Ada generics are bad
Date: 1998/04/14
Date: 1998-04-14T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <matthew_heaney-ya023680001404981917520001@news.ni.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3533d2b3.81874922@news.mindspring.com
In article <3533d2b3.81874922@news.mindspring.com>, munck@acm.org wrote:
>Nonsense. You fix a "broken" feature so that it works the way
>you want it to, and then the developer comes out with a new
>release in which that feature either stays the way it was or
>is changed to work a different way. Now what do you do? "Fix"
>it again? Change all of you existing documents that use that
>feature of the app? Either way, you end up spending all of
>your time fixing all of your application packages.
Not necessarily. I could send the fix to the original developer, and then
(hopefully) he'll incorporate it into the next release. (That will be
completed within hours or days.)
>If you think that it's changing in the direction of increased
>release of source code by developing companies, you're living
>in a software dreamworld.
Then at least provide decent customer support. If there's a problem with
the software, and I tell you about it, then how about repairing the
software and sending me the repaired version?
I'm not saying I'm unwilling to pay for software. I am and I do. I even
pay my shareware fees! It's just that if there's a problem, and I don't
have the source, then I'm pretty much powerless to do anything about it.
With my car, if there's a problem with my carburetor, I can go to my local
parts store and buy a new carburetor. I can even drive the car to the
dealer, and get it fixed on the spot.
Why shouldn't software be the same way? Why do we even call it _soft_ware
anyway, if repairs and enhancements take so long? Why does software come
with a disclaimer, instead of a warranty?
I guess what I'm really asking for is better customer service. When
there's a problem, my desire is that I get a fixed version within a few
hours of my letting you know about it. I'm not even asking for
enhancements - just that the errors get repaired.
In the end we're all in the "needs satisfaction" business. If my needs as
a consumer of software are satisfied by the vendor, without him releasing
the source, then so be it. But this is frequently not the case.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-04-14 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-04-08 0:00 Ada generics are bad Glenden Lee
1998-04-08 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1998-04-09 0:00 ` Anonymous
1998-04-10 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1998-04-10 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-04-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-04-13 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1998-04-13 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-04-13 0:00 ` nabbasi
1998-04-13 0:00 ` future of proprietry source code (was: Ada generics are bad) Fergus Henderson
1998-04-14 0:00 ` David Masterson
1998-04-16 0:00 ` David Kastrup
1998-04-16 0:00 ` David Masterson
1998-04-17 0:00 ` David Kastrup
1998-04-17 0:00 ` campo
1998-04-16 0:00 ` Tim Smith
1998-04-17 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG
1998-04-18 0:00 ` Bill Gribble
1998-04-20 0:00 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
1998-04-21 0:00 ` William Tanksley
1998-04-13 0:00 ` Ada generics are bad Christopher Green
1998-04-14 0:00 ` Robert Munck
1998-04-14 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney [this message]
1998-04-15 0:00 ` Jonathan Guthrie
1998-04-14 0:00 ` Al Christians
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox