Re: Value ...

Hi Tony,

<snip>

Please note that you are making a large issue over a small example I
placed in context. Also understand that this example is indicative to
many of how the company operates.

> Tom, let's consider your statements:
> "paying customers" - if customers are paying and on a current
> release with a current support contract then why do they insist on
> posting to a public forum rather than sending an e-mail? Something

Maybe because it seems simpler to them? Or they want others' input
(possibly hoping for input due to lack of action in the past)? The
reasons could be virtually anything but that doesn't speak to the
issue.

<snip>

> One thing I would change about the policies is that someone should
> monitor forums and occasionally send a cordial note to people, like

And the lack of this common sense practice is an indication (to me at
least) of a very customer-indifferent corporate policy.

<snip>

> like "if they don't know how it works, tough". Again, if you don't
> like the way it works, petition for change or get a new vendor.

My point exactly. With so little evidence of change in the product over
the last ten years, likely the latter will be more effective than the
former.

<snip>

> OpenQM is free (liberty&beer) software, but only for developers, not
> for end users - you aren't paying anything for it so the comparison

Well, I was suggesting that people would likely do much better with the
commercial version of openQM but your statement brings up an
interesting thought:

If Ladybridge (Martin) is this responsive to people who aren't paying
license fees, imagine what their service is like for those who do
(expecting Bruce to begin crowing at any moment <G>)

And the forum thing ... I feel very confident that if Martin sees a
mention anywhere of a potential problem regardless the source, he looks
into it. And it gets fixed if it was a problem. If the problem is due
to misuse or whatever, people are notified. No excuses like 'it didn't
come through proper channels'.

My OP was an observation on very different attitudes. Explaining RD's
excuses doesn't change the end result.

> isn't valid. Paying end-users (for very reasonable licensing fees)
> may still need to contact LadyBridge directly for specific Support
> issues. You can get answers in the OpenQM forum but those answers
> apply to the OpenQM package and may not apply to the closed-source QM
> binary product. I won't minimize their dedication to the product.
> While I have many issues with their interpretation of licensing which

The open source license is simply three letters: 'GPL' (spelled 'Avian
Flu/Aids/Cancer' by many here).

> cause me to not even load the software, I do support their open source

At the risk of your actually trying something about which you opine,
evaluation versions of the commercial version are available ... I
believe complete with tech support (correct me if I am wrong, none).
This way there would be no chance of your PC or server being infected
by OSS <g>.

> approach and encourage people to check into it.

<g>
-Tom

.

Relevant Pages