Fw: Upgrade to latest... always! - was "Why?"

Sun Jul 4 03:38:03 PDT 2004

John informed me that I had sent this message only to him.  I meant to
"reply all"/

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Simon" <flowersoft at compuserve.com>
To: <john at valar.com>; "Fplist (E-mail)" <filepro-list at seaslug.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Upgrade to latest... always! - was "Why?"

> Well, I remember one upgrade that caused me to change hundreds of prc
tables
> because the "form" command was not working properly and I had to change
> every one I had to "printer file" and then "form" and then, when Ken fixed
> the problem (a couple of months later), I had to change all the tables
again
> back to plain "form" because the "printer file, form" version was not
> printing the forms properly from the command promt.  So I'm a little shy
> when upgrading to a later version.
> I usually ask developers that I trust if it is worth while to upgrade and,
> in this case, I've been told that if don't need the @id feature, to stay
> put.
> I'm _very_ happy with 05.0.09.  Except for some rare glitches, like the
one
> the "Why?" post was about, it has been just about perfect for me.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Esak" <john at valar.com>
> To: "Fplist (E-mail)" <filepro-list at seaslug.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 12:21 AM
> Subject: Upgrade to latest... always! - was "Why?"
>
>
> >
> >
> > I hate to add to this longggggggg thread... but I'll do it in this
> > "top-post". Those who couldn't read some of the quoted text in this
thread
> > (and other threads as well) were experiencing only _slight_ trauma
> compared
> > to what my screen reader sounds like reading them... :-) I've also
changed
> > the topic to reflect what my comments are about.
> >
> > Just another exhortation to upgrade to the latest version of filePro you
> are
> > entitled to receive. Anything else is folly and short-sighted. I can
name
> at
> > least 7 people who are _really_ unhappy because they did not upgrade
their
> > 4.8.x versions to the latest and greatest while they had the chance...
> even
> > those with 4.8.10 have some rather serious problems... Had they only
> > obtained the 4.8.12 (and maybe even a couple higher) versions, they
would
> be
> > much happier today. The very same goes for 5.0.x. Not wanting to upgrade
> > because you think the latest version might harm your programming...
well,
> > like I said, folly and short-sighted. The newer versions of filePro only
> fix
> > bugs and add features. Your programming should not suffer _any_ ill
> effects
> > from upgrading. A possible (but desirable) exception is when, say a new
> > environment variable is added to change the behavior of some condition
> that
> > was not working properly... or not a good _default_ behavior. These are
> all
> > noted clearly in the readme's of the upgrade release. I can remember
> several
> > times when such things broke my programs for a short while until I made
> the
> > corrections, but they have always been for the better. A couple examples
I
> > can remember are when an upgrade disallowed certain punctuation in
labels.
> > Or an even more important one where the upgrade made the consequence of
> > pressing BREAK at an input question more predictable. Another was the
> > ability to ignore the DKNF errors and not even display them...  All of
> these
> > upgrades made filePro more reliable and tightened up the processing one
> > should use to make it work correctly. However, I have actually seen
> > programming since these types of updates were made where the programmer
> has
> > chosen to include the environment variable to make filePro work in the
> old,
> > i.e., broken way, rather than just fix their process tables. Too bad,
kind
> > of a dumb thing to do in my opinion... but at least filePro usually
(could
> > probably even say always) gives the opportunity to maintain the
> > "old/un-updated/broken" way of doing things with an environment
variable.
> > Sometimes the "old" way is not actually "broken", just not preferable.
One
> > environment variable that I remember changed the way -nl worked on
lookups
> > when retrieving its record if there was a group of records with the same
> > key. One way (the old way retrieved the first record in the group. The
new
> > way retrieved the last record in the group. (Far more preferable if you
> are
> > trying to get the last record in an index.)  So the new way was chosen
as
> > the default operation and the environment variable was provided if your
> > programming had been relying on it working in the "old" way.  Would
anyone
> > have wanted the old (not-so-good, not as preferable) way set as the
> default
> > just because it might have been used that way by programmers in the
past?
> > Not me, I'd rather be informed of the change and allowed to adjust my
> > thinking and programming to the new/updated way. The environment
variable
> > might be nice for a short time to give me a chance to change the
affected
> > processing, but otherwise, moving on up is always my choice.
> >
> > I'm telling everyone here that the 5.0.13 release is pretty damn good...
> > but, it certainly has many bugs and problems that will be (and are
> already)
> > fixed in what I suppose will be 5.0.14. Not getting that latest version
> > would be a _real_ blunder... again, folly and short-sighted.  I do not
> want
> > to be in the boat of the people who do not have the latest and greatest
> copy
> > when the version level changes a couple times and this one is no longer
> > supported, and the updates not available.  You can start and re-start
the
> > whole argument about what is and should be supported, but if FP Tech is
> > going to do it the way they've stated... then there will not be any
> > available 5.0.14's when 5.0.2 is released. If you are the type who does
> not
> > want to upgrade for _whatever_ reason you have, then you will be *stuck*
> > with the version that you are so unhappy with now. :-)  In the face of
how
> > FP Tech is handling filePro versions and releases, the only thing anyone
> > should do is upgrade as soon as new releases are ready.
> >
> > By the way. I don't understand the whole concept of not wanting to
upgrade
> > and couldn't adopt that position even if I wanted to do so. The support
> > contracts we have with many vendors, some of them costing several
thousand
> > dollars a year, require that we abide by their "rules" and "procedures".
> If
> > we call to complain about a certain behavior, the support rep will go
> > through the usual litany... "Do you have the latest version on your
> system?"
> > If not, they will lead you through the steps to get it on the system.
> Then,
> > and only the, if the problem still exists will it be assigned a tracking
> > number and treated as an incident, etc. This is high-level, costly,
> > professional support I'm talking about. They are tasked to solve the
> > problems, period, and I don't mind following their procedures to get to
> the
> > bottom of any problem. I don't see why FP Tech should be asked to treat
> any
> > problem in some other way... at least not with their supported versions.
> It
> > is not to much to ask that the end-user be using the latest version of
the
> > program, in fact is is SOP _everywhere_.  If you don't believe this, try
> the
> > support teams even at places that don't charge for the support. Call UPS
> and
> > ask a question about World-Ship. If the first question out of the tech's
> > mouth is not "What version are you running, please press Help/About..."
> > I'll eat my words.
> >
> > Throwing in one more opinion. I do not believe any minor upgrade, i.e.,
an
> > upgrade from 5.0.x to the latest 5.0.n version should cost any money...
> and
> > I don't think FP Tech charges for these... so there is really no good
> reason
> > not to upgrade as releases become available. As for moving up from 5.0.x
> to
> > 5.1.n. This will cost some money. It should. The features added in a
major
> > number change should warrant the charge and nobody should have any
reason
> to
> > complain about this. As for moving from 5.x.n to 6.x.n, well, that
should
> > cost even more again.  And who would complain?  Not me.
> >
> > John Esak
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com
> > > [mailto:filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com]On Behalf Of Kenneth
> > > Brody
> > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:39 PM
> > > To: George Simon
> > > Cc: filePro mailing list
> > > Subject: Re: Why?
> > >
> > >
> > > George Simon wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > If they can't make it happen using rreport 5.0.13, we'll just
> > > have to assume
> > > > that it has been fixed.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > At which point, will you get the 5.0.13 update?
> > >
> > > --
> > > +-------------------------+--------------------+------------------
> > -----------+
> > > | Kenneth J. Brody        | www.hvcomputer.com |
> > >            |
> > > | kenbrody at spamcop.net | www.fptech.com     | #include
> > > <std_disclaimer.h> |
> > > +-------------------------+--------------------+------------------
> > -----------+
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Filepro-list mailing list
> > > Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > > http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Filepro-list mailing list
> > Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
> >
>