FW: FPODBC - follow-up

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:04:58PM -0500, Kenneth Brody wrote:
> Terry Slater wrote:
> [...]
> > Isn't backward compatibility one of the keys to making a good piece of
> > software? IMHO, the new License model is flawed if it doesn't allow for
> > backward compatibility with older OS's. Just a thought.
> 
> Should filePro 5.0 be made to work on an MS-DOS 3.1 system with a 286?
> 
> How far back should the application support?  (See the other subthread
> regarding Micosoft no longer supporting those O/S's.)

Should an application be able to be used on a workstation (where it
clearly will actaully *run*) whose operating system likely comprises
50% or more of the installed base, and fairly clearly will continue to,
regardless of the fact that the vendor is dropping support for that
version of the OS (in favor of an OS whose EULA *requires* you to grant
Microsoft root access at their discretion for no good reason)?

It should be pretty clear which side of the value judgement *I* come
down on, and I'm not even deploying the product.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff     Baylink                             RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet         The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Florida        http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

        Come see Linux Gazette in our new home: www.linuxgazette.net!