In other words, those *were* personal attacks against the folks who
work at
Bare Bones, *whether you intended it or not*. I'm not at all
surprised by
the response from the list, nor that there's been no traffic from
Bare Bones
recently (not that there really needed to be anyway, they'd already
said
their piece). If it was me I'd be pretty damn steamed at being called
sneaky, sleazy and dishonest, even if it was true.
Saying that "Company X is acting in a sleazy manner" is not the same
as saying "Joe Blow is a f-in' jackass." I directed the former at
Bare Bones. The latter was directed at me. Same thing? You be the judge.
As for the actual intent, trumpeting all the great features of the
product while making no mention of a deliberately built-in mechanism
for hindering paying customers is sneaky and sleazy.
I have used other software with nag mechanisms, but in every cases
I've personally encountered, I was at least warned about those
limitations prior to purchase.
Tell me where on Bare Bones's site it says anything about the nag box
that effectively makes EVERY running instance of BBEdit unusable
until you quit most of them.
Obviously, Bare Bones is not proud of how they crippled BBEdit,
because they make no mention of it anywhere. Many people on this list
didn't even know the mechanism existed until I brought it up. Sounds
to me like they're hiding this fact from potential customers.
Is that sneaky? Is it sleazy? Obviously, we have a difference of
opinion.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a feature request? Not sure the software's working correctly?
If so, please send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not to the list.
List FAQ: <http://www.barebones.com/support/lists/bbedit_talk.shtml>
List archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/BBEditTalk.lasso>
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
