RE: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]

[CE WOOD]

 I have emphasized and isolated the sentences in your post to which I am 
responding. "Traditionally?" Baloney!

If the programmers knew anything about history, they would NEVER assume that 
the biological parents were usually married! Since history began, children have 
been born out-of-wedlock! In more recent times, Henry I of England has the 
distinction of having the most recognized illegitimate
children of any English king, with more than 20 to his name. Yes, he was 
married, but not so for all his mistresses, although they certainly had 
children.

To combine "not married" with "had no children" is ridiculous! One poster 
mentioned, "dsp" Genealogy has dealt with this issue far longer than Legacy 
programmers, and have several abbreviations to cover various circumstances 
regarding children. Note that none of these are combined with "not married".

dsp: (Latin, decessit sine prole) died without
issue

dspl: (Latin, decessit sine prole legitima) died
without legitimate issue

dspm: (Latin, decessit sine prole malus)
died without sons

dspml: (Latin, decessit sine prole malus
legitima) died without legitimate sons

dspms: (Latin, decessit sine prole malus suivre)
died without surviving sons

dsps: (Latin, decessit sine prole suivre) died
without surviving issue

And, as one other (or perhaps the same) poster said, many men never knew or 
know if they had children. Women, of course, did, but again, were not always 
married.


CE

From: j...@jearnshaw.me.uk
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 21:03:53 +0100

In many ways what you say is correct. It is almost pointless making a costly 
change that will only benefit a small number of existing users. But the issues 
raised are not, in the long term, in that category.-  “not married and 
had no children” will become a growing issue with today’s means of creating 
children and forming relationships – not least children with 3 biological 
parents-  Same sex marriage is now legal in many places and will 
increase in prevalence. The main point is the first of these, as the business 
process within the software appears to be driven by the programmers who are 
using a technical, rather than real world, decision.   They have looked at the 
software requirement and realised that “biologically” each person has two 
parents. Traditionally this meant there was a marriage – even though there are 
so many examples, even in the Victorian era, of people ignoring these 
conventions.What is needed is for the business (i.e. those responsible for 
the customer needs) to look at whether this model is still relevant. If not 
they need to specify what the model should be. The programmers will then have 
to adjust the database structure to satisfy the business need. This may well 
mean that the “parents” of a child is a list of people and that this might 
include a “married” couple, but not necessarily. Until Legacy accepts that 
there is a need to recognise 21C definitions of family, marriage, parenting 
etc, then there is little point in objecting to the existing structure. The 
database design is clearly so indelibly entwined with the definition of family 
that it isn’t possible to “tinker” with the system. Jack From: gerald 
[mailto:g...@representative.com]
Sent: 09 April 2015 20:24
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...] 
It may appear, John, that what you would like to see in a program is very 
logical to you, but the number of other users that feel the same can be counted 
on one hand. It is just not worth the time and effort to make those changes for 
only a few. I know from personal experience in writiing a simple program that 
one little "correction" involves re-writing the entire code for the program, 
and I have to ask myself "is it worth all this bother?" just for this little 
change before doing anything at all. A better idea is simply to make the 
changes yourself. I find that I often have to make it myself for anything to be 
the way I want it. So write your own program that does exactly what you want. 
Then it will always be perfect. Very logical way to go, I think. Don't wait for 
others to do it for you -- do it yourself.  Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 at 
12:18 AM
From: "John Lisle" 
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON 
...]Jay,

Your (and my?) idea of what the market requires may be different from what 
Legacy's management feels is necessary.
What you and I whine about most often are the small 10 cent changes that could 
make our lives easier as we go about our business.

I would like to see an L8.1 that picks up a number of these changes.

john.



Legac

Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]

[John Lisle]

Gerald,
First, I question your comment that only a handful of users might use the
changes I am suggesting. 
Legacy has a large number of "Power" users, most of whom will
never participate on this list. These are users who use more than 10% of
the functionality in Legacy. :-) (Unlike Microsoft Word, where power
users use 5% of the functionality.) 
Microsoft has labs where they record how folks use their products to
attempt to make them easier to use and use fewer keystrokes to get stuff
done. 
Legacy does not have such a lab. It does depend on its users to make
these suggestions as you and I probably spend more time entering data,
creating reports, etc. than any of the Legacy staff does.
Once a user is introduced to a time saving feature, I suspect they will
use it forever. Someone just needs to suggest it and Legacy to implement
it. Over the last dozen or so years, I have suggested many improvements
to Legacy that you probably use every day.
Second, I agree that some changes may require major re-writes to
accomplish. With 50+ years of programming under my belt, I appreciate the
sentiment that Legacy is not going to make any such changes. Nor would I
expect them to. 
The thrust of my discussion was that Legacy has 4 types of changes it
makes:
1/ Major changes to the Legacy infrastructure
2/ Major new functionality
3/ Bug fixes
4/ minor functional enhancements
Any one of these could require major re-write.
What many users tell me privately is that many of the minor functional
enhancements that could improve the ease of use of existing functionality
seem to be forgotten, even if the effort to implement them is
minor.
As a Power user, I will strongly advocate for anything that saves me
time, as I know that it could save you time also.
john.
PS: I hope this is my last posting on this associated topic for now.
Further responses will go to private email. 

At 03:24 PM 4/9/2015, gerald wrote:
It may appear, John, that what
you would like to see in a program is very logical to you, but the number
of other users that feel the same can be counted on one hand. It is just
not worth the time and effort to make those changes for only a few. I
know from personal experience in writiing a simple program that one
little "correction" involves re-writing the entire code for the
program, and I have to ask myself "is it worth all this
bother?" just for this little change before doing anything at
all.
 
A better idea is simply to make the changes yourself. I find that I often
have to make it myself for anything to be the way I want it. So write
your own program that does exactly what you want. Then it will always be
perfect. Very logical way to go, I think. Don't wait for others to do it
for you -- do it yourself.
  
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 at 12:18 AM From: "John
Lisle"  To:
legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing
the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]
Jay, Your (and my?) idea of what the market requires may be different
from what Legacy's management feels is necessary. What you and I whine
about most often are the small 10 cent changes that could make our lives
easier as we go about our business. I would like to see an L8.1 that
picks up a number of these changes. john.  




Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com
Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]

[Jack Earnshaw]

In many ways what you say is correct. It is almost pointless making a costly 
change that will only benefit a small number of existing users. But the issues 
raised are not, in the long term, in that category.

-  “not married and had no children” will become a growing issue with 
today’s means of creating children and forming relationships – not least 
children with 3 biological parents

-  Same sex marriage is now legal in many places and will increase in 
prevalence.



The main point is the first of these, as the business process within the 
software appears to be driven by the programmers who are using a technical, 
rather than real world, decision. They have looked at the software requirement 
and realised that “biologically” each person has two parents. Traditionally 
this meant there was a marriage – even though there are so many examples, even 
in the Victorian era, of people ignoring these conventions.



What is needed is for the business (i.e. those responsible for the customer 
needs) to look at whether this model is still relevant. If not they need to 
specify what the model should be. The programmers will then have to adjust the 
database structure to satisfy the business need. This may well mean that the 
“parents” of a child is a list of people and that this might include a 
“married” couple, but not necessarily.



Until Legacy accepts that there is a need to recognise 21C definitions of 
family, marriage, parenting etc, then there is little point in objecting to the 
existing structure. The database design is clearly so indelibly entwined with 
the definition of family that it isn’t possible to “tinker” with the system.



Jack



From: gerald [mailto:g...@representative.com]
Sent: 09 April 2015 20:24
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]



It may appear, John, that what you would like to see in a program is very 
logical to you, but the number of other users that feel the same can be counted 
on one hand. It is just not worth the time and effort to make those changes for 
only a few. I know from personal experience in writiing a simple program that 
one little "correction" involves re-writing the entire code for the program, 
and I have to ask myself "is it worth all this bother?" just for this little 
change before doing anything at all.



A better idea is simply to make the changes yourself. I find that I often have 
to make it myself for anything to be the way I want it. So write your own 
program that does exactly what you want. Then it will always be perfect. Very 
logical way to go, I think. Don't wait for others to do it for you -- do it 
yourself.



Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 at 12:18 AM
From: "John Lisle" mailto:leg...@johnlisle.com> >
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com <mailto:legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com>
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]

Jay,

Your (and my?) idea of what the market requires may be different from what 
Legacy's management feels is necessary.
What you and I whine about most often are the small 10 cent changes that could 
make our lives easier as we go about our business.

I would like to see an L8.1 that picks up a number of these changes.

john.




Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com
Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our 
blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp





Legacy User Group guidelines:

http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com

Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our 
blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]

[gerald]

It may appear, John, that what you would like to see in a program is very logical to you, but the number of other users that feel the same can be counted on one hand. It is just not worth the time and effort to make those changes for only a few. I know from personal experience in writiing a simple program that one little "correction" involves re-writing the entire code for the program, and I have to ask myself "is it worth all this bother?" just for this little change before doing anything at all.

 

A better idea is simply to make the changes yourself. I find that I often have to make it myself for anything to be the way I want it. So write your own program that does exactly what you want. Then it will always be perfect. Very logical way to go, I think. Don't wait for others to do it for you -- do it yourself.

 

Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 at 12:18 AM
From: "John Lisle" 
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]

Jay,

Your (and my?) idea of what the market requires may be different from what Legacy's management feels is necessary.
What you and I whine about most often are the small 10 cent changes that could make our lives easier as we go about our business.

I would like to see an L8.1 that picks up a number of these changes.

john.
 





Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com
Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]

[Paul Gray]

John,



Everything you say is spot on. I must admit that my main concern is that Legacy 
is (and I assume they are) spending effort updating the ‘technical platform’ 
that Legacy runs on. We have heard numerous times (including from Legacy) that 
the platform is old technology. For example, that is always brought up in the 
context of adding additional character sets for foreign languages. I would 
think at the present time that is more important than individual feature 
improvements. (Although I do want my personal favorite downloading sources from 
FSFT, if RM can do it, so can Legacy).



Using old technology will eventually make the program unusable on newer  
hardware/operating systems.



Paul Gray



From: John Lisle [mailto:leg...@johnlisle.com]
Sent: April-09-15 12:18 AM
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]



Jay,

Your (and my?) idea of what the market requires may be different from what 
Legacy's management feels is necessary.

Several years ago, an aggressive effort was made to create international 
versions. That added greatly to its market.

L7 added mapping, improved privacy, source writer, and several other features 
that were driven by market needs.

L7.5 added FamilySearch support. Although this was at first needed to support 
their LDS customers, this is now used by many other users now that FamilySearch 
tree is open to all.

L8 added shared events, live Potential Problem Alerts, auto checking for 
duplicates additions, improved media handling, auto date sorting of events and 
children as they are added, etc etc. - all features we use most every day. 
(Maybe not Shared events for TNG users... :-))

--> all of these were driven by serious requests from the user base and from 
competitive pressures. That is definition of market driven.

I know that many of the changes we want require some major work on the Legacy 
infrastructure. That is happening.

What you and I whine about most often are the small 10 cent changes that could 
make our lives easier as we go about our business.

I would like to see an L8.1 that picks up a number of these changes.

But, there are some changes, like the same-sex marriage one, that seems to need 
to have certain major infrastructure work done first.

Shared events took years to come to fruition. Legacy wanted to do it right, 
and, mostly, I think they have.

My hallucination is that when they can do same-sex relationships, it will be 
done in a classy manner. And most of us will have so few of them in our family 
files that it will take just hours to make what we have right.

john.

At 10:10 PM 4/8/2015, Jay Wilpolt wrote:



Sorry Tessa,

IF Legacy paid attention to the market and the needs of its customers they 
would have made many of the suggested changes already

Face the facts ..they dont want to and I doubt they ever will



On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Tessa Keough  wrote:

I like Legacy and hope that they continue to pay attention to the

market and the needs of their customers because, when all is said and

done, it is a business that provides a product to the public.

Whether it is the administrators or the programmers - ease of use,

keeping up with the competition, offering useful and necessary

features, and updates that take care of previous bugs and don't add

new ones - is what it is all about. I am sure these companies all

watch each other and then make decisions based on where they want

their product to go in the future. Sadly we have seen promising

programs fall by the wayside and others never take off if they can't

satisfy their customer base.

I am under the impression (don't know why) that it is a small group

but they are involved in all aspects. It would be interesting to know

more and I would guess those who have been on the cruises might have a

better idea of the players and their attitudes/capabilities.

Tessa

Tessa Keough

Guild of One-Name Studies, Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS

Legacy Virtual Users' Group Community on Google+

Society for One-Place Studies, Plate Cove East, Newfoundland



On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot

< br...@the-lightfoots.com <mailto:br...@the-lightfoots.com> > wrote:

> I was wondering when somebody was going to mention this.  And given the fact 
> that the "programmers" are part of the executive management team, I'd say the 
> chance of a major change to this aspect of relationships is on par with the 
> drought in California ending tomorrow.  (I always thought that Millennia 
> used job-shop or contract programmers. Wonder when that changed?)

>

> Brian in CA

>

  _

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4321/9439 - Release Date: 04/02/15



Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.as

Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]

[Nancy]

Right John.


Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:20 AM, John Lisle  wrote:
>
> Jay,
>
> Your (and my?) idea of what the market requires may be different from what 
> Legacy's management feels is necessary.
>
> Several years ago, an aggressive effort was made to create international 
> versions. That added greatly to its market.
>
> L7 added mapping, improved privacy, source writer, and several other features 
> that were driven by market needs.
>
> L7.5 added FamilySearch support. Although this was at first needed to support 
> their LDS customers, this is now used by many other users now that 
> FamilySearch tree is open to all.
>
> L8 added shared events, live Potential Problem Alerts, auto checking for 
> duplicates additions, improved media handling, auto date sorting of events 
> and children as they are added, etc etc. - all features we use most every 
> day. (Maybe not Shared events for TNG users... :-))
>
> --> all of these were driven by serious requests from the user base and from 
> competitive pressures. That is definition of market driven.
>
> I know that many of the changes we want require some major work on the Legacy 
> infrastructure. That is happening.
>
> What you and I whine about most often are the small 10 cent changes that 
> could make our lives easier as we go about our business.
>
> I would like to see an L8.1 that picks up a number of these changes.
>
> But, there are some changes, like the same-sex marriage one, that seems to 
> need to have certain major infrastructure work done first.
>
> Shared events took years to come to fruition. Legacy wanted to do it right, 
> and, mostly, I think they have.
>
> My hallucination is that when they can do same-sex relationships, it will be 
> done in a classy manner. And most of us will have so few of them in our 
> family files that it will take just hours to make what we have right.
>
> john.
>
> At 10:10 PM 4/8/2015, Jay Wilpolt wrote:
>> Sorry Tessa,
>>
>> IF Legacy paid attention to the market and the needs of its customers they 
>> would have made many of the suggested changes already
>>
>> Face the facts ..they dont want to and I doubt they ever will
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Tessa Keough  wrote:
>> I like Legacy and hope that they continue to pay attention to the
>> market and the needs of their customers because, when all is said and
>> done, it is a business that provides a product to the public.
>>
>> Whether it is the administrators or the programmers - ease of use,
>> keeping up with the competition, offering useful and necessary
>> features, and updates that take care of previous bugs and don't add
>> new ones - is what it is all about. I am sure these companies all
>> watch each other and then make decisions based on where they want
>> their product to go in the future. Sadly we have seen promising
>> programs fall by the wayside and others never take off if they can't
>> satisfy their customer base.
>>
>> I am under the impression (don't know why) that it is a small group
>> but they are involved in all aspects. It would be interesting to know
>> more and I would guess those who have been on the cruises might have a
>> better idea of the players and their attitudes/capabilities.
>>
>> Tessa
>>
>> Tessa Keough
>> Guild of One-Name Studies, Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS
>> Legacy Virtual Users' Group Community on Google+
>> Society for One-Place Studies, Plate Cove East, Newfoundland
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot
>> < br...@the-lightfoots.com> wrote:
>> > I was wondering when somebody was going to mention this.  And given the 
>> > fact that the "programmers" are part of the executive management team, I'd 
>> > say the chance of a major change to this aspect of relationships is on par 
>> > with the drought in California ending tomorrow.  (I always thought that 
>> > Millennia used job-shop or contract programmers. Wonder when that changed?)
>> >
>> > Brian in CA
>> >
>
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
> Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
> Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
> Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com
> Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on 
> our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp




Legacy User Group guidelines:

http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com

Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.

Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]

[John Lisle]

Jay,
Your (and my?) idea of what the market requires may be different from
what Legacy's management feels is necessary. 
Several years ago, an aggressive effort was made to create international
versions. That added greatly to its market.
L7 added mapping, improved privacy, source writer, and several other
features that were driven by market needs.
L7.5 added FamilySearch support. Although this was at first needed to
support their LDS customers, this is now used by many other users now
that FamilySearch tree is open to all.
L8 added shared events, live Potential Problem Alerts, auto checking for
duplicates additions, improved media handling, auto date sorting of
events and children as they are added, etc etc. - all features we use
most every day. (Maybe not Shared events for TNG users... :-))
--> all of these were driven by serious requests from the user base
and from competitive pressures. That is definition of market
driven.
I know that many of the changes we want require some major work on the
Legacy infrastructure. That is happening.
What you and I whine about most often are the small 10 cent changes that
could make our lives easier as we go about our business.
I would like to see an L8.1 that picks up a number of these
changes.
But, there are some changes, like the same-sex marriage one, that seems
to need to have certain major infrastructure work done first.
Shared events took years to come to fruition. Legacy wanted to do it
right, and, mostly, I think they have. 
My hallucination is that when they can do same-sex relationships, it will
be done in a classy manner. And most of us will have so few of them in
our family files that it will take just hours to make what we have
right.
john.
At 10:10 PM 4/8/2015, Jay Wilpolt wrote:
Sorry Tessa,
IF Legacy paid attention to the market and the needs of its customers
they would have made many of the suggested changes already 
Face the facts ..they dont want to and I doubt they ever will


On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Tessa Keough

wrote:


I like Legacy and hope that they continue to pay attention to
the

market and the needs of their customers because, when all is said
and

done, it is a business that provides a product to the
public.

Whether it is the administrators or the programmers - ease of
use,

keeping up with the competition, offering useful and necessary

features, and updates that take care of previous bugs and don't
add

new ones - is what it is all about. I am sure these companies
all

watch each other and then make decisions based on where they
want

their product to go in the future. Sadly we have seen promising

programs fall by the wayside and others never take off if they
can't

satisfy their customer base.

I am under the impression (don't know why) that it is a small
group

but they are involved in all aspects. It would be interesting to
know

more and I would guess those who have been on the cruises might have
a

better idea of the players and their attitudes/capabilities.

Tessa

Tessa Keough

Guild of One-Name Studies, Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe)
Registered ONS

Legacy Virtual Users' Group Community on Google+

Society for One-Place Studies, Plate Cove East, Newfoundland


On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot

<
br...@the-lightfoots.com> wrote:

> I was wondering when somebody was going to mention this. 
And given the fact that the "programmers" are part of the
executive management team, I'd say the chance of a major change to this
aspect of relationships is on par with the drought in California ending
tomorrow.  (I always thought that Millennia used job-shop or
contract programmers. Wonder when that changed?)

>

> Brian in CA

>





Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com
Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp