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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,85034d1ac78a66eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-28 05:30:45 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Operating System
Date: 28 Mar 2002 07:25:53 -0600
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <vEY3SfNlq6Uc@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <a62kmf$giv$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <o2td8ug1chantij2e6j80kk56mrafp6e78@4ax.com> <a6825a$75c$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3C88E0D1.89161C16@despammed.com> <a6m8h5$rpb$1@helle.btinternet.com>
 <a6nld6$i4n$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <jgo59u49ro74pbfvoek6ruqqa5o790mq90@4ax.com>
 <wcc8z8se0oe.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <v30a9usnp895obfnu6ef8t9h6nnn9fkp1r@4ax.com> <3C9514DD.9CF1F84A@san.rr.com>
 <99da9u0909rsblfdcc1ru7jd2r9q461qhk@4ax.com>
 <a76lbh$8i42@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <436o9uc7jg590rv5rb1l9v6be8vk49s278@4ax.com> <a7ntns$7hh$Organization: LJK
 Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1017321961 28551 192.135.80.34 (28 Mar 2002
 13:26:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:26:01 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21755
Date: 2002-03-28T07:25:53-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <a7su97$h6p$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:

> Personally, I might be willing to put out a given product and offer a money
> back guarantee if not completely satisfied, while remaining unwilling to
> warrant against all defects and all possible damages. I might have
> sufficient confidence in an application that I'd believe the returns would
> be small. The only problem with that scenario is how is a company to make
> sure that the "dissatisfied customer" isn't keeping an "emergency offsite
> backup" of the software they are returning? :-)

That is not an issue so long as your software is imperfect.
Once they claim a refund they don't receive updates to the
new better version.

By "imperfect" here, I mean to include "lacking features"
rather than just "containing defects".