Why?

[Fairlight]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:35:54PM -0400, Kenneth Brody may or may not have
proven themselves an utter git by pronouncing:
> 
> No one is *requiring* you to do anything.  But, how are you going to
> get a bugfix if you don't get a new version with the bug fixed?
> 
[snip]
> 
> You feel you should be able to get bigs fixed, but not have to actually
> get the bugfix to correct it?

They way -I'm- interpreting what Jay is saying is that one should be able
to get a bugfixed 5.0.9, not an upgrade to a 5.0.13 that has the bug
fixes but -also- may have tweaked/added/broken features.

That's how I read it.  "I don't want to have to upgrade to 5.0.13, I want
my 5.0.9 fixed."

> What's so hard about "try it on the latest version, and if it still fails,
> let us know"?

People have been edgy about upgrading versions for a long time, Ken.  4.5
comes to mind, when indexes started being whacky.  A lot have been skittish
since then, and don't want to upgrade, they just want their current version
patched for the bugs they find--but no extra features/functionality/etc.
I'm not laying any blame.  I'm not even saying that it's tenable to support
patched versions of 13 releases of 5.0.  (Even Red Hat was only supporting
five RHL and 2 RHEL platforms at a time.)  I'm simply saying I think that's
what they're after, right or wrong.

And there's some resistance (as some stated) to the new licensing scheme.
A lot of people shied away from WinXP for the same reason.  I can actually
think of several products where people stopped upgrading because later
versions did things they didn't like.  fP is not alone there.

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html