- It's unfair to have a go at With for any of these policy decisions - as Rick says, all software manufacturers follow a similar line and for good reason. With can't be held responsible for Tango2000 particularly when they don't own the rights to that version (whereas in some of these other cases where software code is purchased by another manufacturer, they do own the code but plainly want to avoid the responsibilities of maintaining a very recent and current version simply because they don't make any money out of it). I do think it is the responsibility of the software company to maintain the previous version at least until enough time has lapsed for users to migrate to new versions - would we like it if our service suppliers refused to honour the contracts because they had bought out a company and wanted an immediate revenue stream for services provided?
- I take exception to not being able to on-sell your software license as a business commodity - yes we only have a license to use it and don't own the code but even licenses can be made transferable (many are), and why shouldn't they be? It is like selling a car to one person and them not being able to on-sell it. I know With aren't the only ones who follow this policy but I still think it isn't right.
- Let's all keep in mind one very important point. We like the product and it serves our purposes to use it for our own commercial ends. When Pervasive discontinued it, the developer community were at a loose end as to what was going to happen and a bunch of us discussed putting money into saving the product and keeping it viable. Well, With actually put their money where their mouth was, so to speak, and while they aren't perfect (sorry, Phil, it's only my opinion) they have done an admirable job as a small company to resurrect the product, drive product development in the correct directions, make a solid product foundation for us to bank on now and for the future, and provided us with a plan of where the product is going which seems to fit well within the software development plans of most of the list.
- I think they have taken a certain public relations approach which is minimalist and seems a bit distant sometimes, but hey, they're a small company with a bucket load of work to do and we should give them some slack. Let me ask, how many times have you emailed a large osftware companies multiple times before you got an answer (or any range of small and large businesses). I hate dealing with a lot of software companies and suppliers simply because it is like extracting teeth. With may have not replied to some emails, and sometimes they may be slow in returning emails and calls, but at the end of the day you know that when you do get them they will be responsive to your requests and they are flexible. Yes, I like more transparency but I also know that blanket policy decisions can be difficult when there are a lot of variables and you're trying to coax a product into maturity. Goodness know, I have different sales and support answers for different clients depending on where the situation is at, so I can understand that until the majority of the developer community is using Wi5+ and there are straightforward support and licensing issues, With may provide different paths for different situations since they want to take as many people forward with them as possible.
We all have our own frustrations and situations to deal with, and sometimes they are not compatible with others, so let's all be a bit more patient with With and with each other lest we preach and then be the first to contradict what we have preached.
I think I had more than my 5 cents worth but what the heck, it's a beautiful sunny Aussie day here on the Central Coast and I am feeling good after receiving a excellent report from a client with my latest web site completed almost entirely in Tango. And he really likes the speed of the new Wi5 server.
cheers
Garth
Hey Mike,
First of all, you must remember that you don't really own the software. You have a license to use the software. This is standard across the software industry.
BTW: I own Tango 2000/SP1 for Windows, and I am not encouraging anybody to resort to piracy. I cannot agree with With trying to exercise claims to previous versions of Tango and, at the same time, no longer supporting Tango.
Tango 2000 was released by Pervasive and not With. Therefore, The software manufacturer in this case does not exist. With Enterprises has version 4.5 and up. With bought the code from Pervasive to continue on the software, not make bug fixes to the old Tango.
that
The issue of knowing you have a vulnerability in the code to a productWhatyou now own but do not offer a technical solution for a crucial feature is very troublesome. Forcing users to upgrade seems to me like blackmail.choice do we have to keep our applications running?
It's the same with any software manufacturer. That's what keeps them going. If the software manufacturers always gave free service packs, the software manufacturer would go out of business paying the programmers! Eventually, it becomes less profitable to release service packs for the same version, hence a new version is released.
entitled -forThe software manufacturer has some obligations too. I understand I am not entitled at additional features for free, but I definitely amfree- to corrections to the code for which I paid. After all, you are only required to correct you own mistakes. You do have access to the code to be corrected, don't you?
These were Pervasive's mistakes, not With Enterprises'
MUSTAs far as I am concerned, Tango 2000 works fine for what I need, and I do not have to upgrade right now, nor do I have the money to spend. But Imake sure I am not having known vulnerabilities in the application. My business depends on it.
Then, unfortunately you have to stick with an unsupported product. Tell me, if you call Microsoft with a Windows ME problem, what's the first thing they say? Give us your credit card number, and we'll help you. It's the same with many software companies. At least With is talking with existing Tango 2000 customers for free and consulting them!
through
Now, installing a new upgrade in the production environment is not easy, making old code run takes time, effort etc. Based on what I read on this list (and beyond the time needed to gothe required reading associated with the adoption of a new version),Witangov5 was not really a smooth sailing. There were problems reported, which required time and patience to make the new Witango version run. And if all this effort is understandable to reap the benefits of new additional> features that one might need, it is a possible a waste of time if you do not > need them. > So even if the upgrade was for free, I would always prefer a patch. > Am I stating the obvious? Providing free patches is standard businesspractice in the software world, isn't it?
If you can tell me of any application server software that was released with no bugs, please let me know. Macromedia had to release 4 service packs for Cold Fusion MX server because of big problems.
The second point, even more important, is that you want people to contact you, "to work something out" (on a case by case basis). Why is that? Why don't we have a solution in the open, for everybody to know? I can only assume here that people would be offered different prices based on their negotiating skills. This it is totally unacceptable.
It's simple. Individual people have individual needs! It's good customer service to help someone based upon their individual needs, rather than issue a policy standard resolution to any problem! I'm sure that With would handle your problems on an individual basis.
I am profoundly disappointed by With's lack of candor, understanding and support for their customers and, (at best) questionable selling tactics. Developing (or inheriting) a good product to sell cannot be cover to poor corporate behavior. Sooner or later we'll drop the product.
Well, if you're a Tango 2000 user, then you're not With Enterprises' customer! You're Pervasive's customer!
In a nutshell, I use Ghost by Symantec. I had the last version released by Byte Interactive which was 5.2. When Symantec bought the technology, did they give out service packs for free? Heck no! Version 6 was released within 3 months after they bought it. If you didn't upgrade to version 6 by Symantec, then they wouldn't even talk to you. It's industry standard! Become a customer of With Enterprises, and you'll get all the support, service packs, and bug fixes your heart desires!
My 5 cents.
Rick Sanders
It
Mike Bravu.
-----Original Message----- From: Phil Wade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 1:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: Tango 2000 for Mac needed
OK it is now time for me to add my 2 cents worth.
1 ...
2 Supply of the Pervasive branded evaluation copy falls under the same license issues as the full product and carries the same license with it.has the same licensing issues, that my support team mentioned earlier,withPopCharts and Data Directs ODBC Manager and drivers. If it is the Mac OS9version, the installer is not even licensed to be distributed.benefits
3 Migrating to Witango 5 provides you with several architecturalthein the server, but it also provides you with the ability to receive bug fixes into the future. The Witango 5 code will be maintained well afterv6 server is released this time next year. The Tango 2000 code wasretiredandcoming up to 3 years ago and will not have any fixes made to it. The T2K server has the cookie buffer overrun issue and there will not be a new release of T2K resolving this issue.
4 Work with us and we can work something out. Go outside the channelour hands are tied.out
5 Wayne, if you had contacted us we could have tried to work somethingachieveas we have for many other T2K users during their migrations to Witango 5. You only work down the road, your in the same timezone and it is only a local call, so contact me and we can look at what you are trying toand we can see what we can legally do to help you.develop
6 ... Phil
On 2/8/03 5:06 PM, "Wayne Irvine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>By you wanting a Tango 2000 server, this means that you won't be getting >>it from With Enterprises. Since they are the ones who support and>>the product, they are the ones who are losing out. > >And ironically the reason I need a second copy is to allow me to evaluate >WiTango whilst leaving some sites on an undisturbed box. The evaluation >process needs to happen before I spend money on my WiTango license. > >I will definitely contact you as a 30 day eval license is exactly what I >need. > >Thanks > >Wayne Irvine > > > Byte Services Pty Ltd > http://www.byteserve.com.au/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ph 02 9960 6099 Mob 0409 960 609 Fax 02 9960 6088 > >______________________________________________________________________ >__ >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
-- Garth Penglase Broadband Media http://bbmedia.com.au ph: 0500 527 000 ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
