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

[John Esak]

<top-post>
I'm forwarding this to the list.
</top-post>

-----Original Message-----
From: George Simon [mailto:flowersoft at compuserve.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 6:32 AM
To: john at valar.com
Subject: Re: Upgrade to latest... always! - was "Why?"


I'm sorry, John.
I must have hit "reply" instead of "reply all".
You can post it to the list if you want or if not, I will.
Thanks.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Esak" <john at valar.com>
To: "George Simon" <flowersoft at compuserve.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 7:47 PM
Subject: RE: Upgrade to latest... always! - was "Why?"


>
> George,
> Can I ask why you sent this reply just to me and not the list??
>
> John
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Simon [mailto:flowersoft at compuserve.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 9:05 AM
> > To: john at valar.com; Fplist (E-mail)
> > 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
> > >
> >