Filepro Version 5.0.15

[Brian K. White]

I always install oss646c on any box I touch if at all possible, but in my 
case it just _happens_ that it's almost always all of within my authority, 
within my skillset, and within the scope of the customers explicit 
expectations to perform that type of update and that particular update.
But that's just lucky for me that this aspect of 5.0.15 just _happens_ to be 
a small burden for me.

Scott is 100% justified in feeling as though he's been slapped with an 
unexpected and unecessary burden by fp. It's not reasonable to expect this 
requirement to be trivial in all or most cases.
Most fp programmers I know are not that great of unix sys admins. Even when 
they can do this update, it's more work, more time, and more risk for them 
than it is for me, and for many it's simply out of the question, call the 
unix guy and pay him an hour.

Then of course the license manager...

Did they give us socket() or nested calls in that update?
No? Hmm, interesting double standard.

In a minor version, bugfix, free, update I completely understand and agree 
with not backporting or adding major new features like that. Even minor new 
features or enhancements that aren't bug fixes.
Yet they slapped us with a major new problem to deal with and a major change 
to the way the system works in the form of the license manager in the same 
minor bugfix update.

This is just plain wrong wrong wrong and there is no excusing or justifying 
it.
There is no valid argument.
Nor am I a bad guy for having a problem with it. I am none of illogical, 
unreasonable, a theif nor abhorrant of paying for that which I derive value 
from. It's not about me despite some peoples attempt to twist it into that 
last time I posted on the topic.

Fp simply did it because they could, and not enough people are objecting 
loudly enough, and so it stands. It remains _wrong_ however.

By rights I should call them on the phone every day and lodge an official 
complaint detailing every situation and reason that the license manager 
screws up my life and my business and indirectly that of all my customers, 
and tie up an hour of some humans time every single day until it's fixed, 
because it's a problem that hurts me every single day. (or it will once it 
becomes a problem running on 5.0.14, such as when new downloads or licenses 
for it are no longer available.)

Brian K. White    brian at aljex.com    http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro  BBx    Linux  SCO  FreeBSD    #callahans  Satriani  Filk!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Pierre A. Radley" <appl at jpr.com>
To: "Scott Walker" <ScottWalker at RAMSystemsCorp.com>
Cc: "'Bud Henschen'" <bud at henschen.com>; "'filePro Mailing List'" 
<filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Filepro Version 5.0.15


> Scott Walker propounded (on Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 08:58:36PM -0400):
> | Bud,
> |
> | Just a complaint.  Take it for what it's worth.
> |
> | Over two and a half years ago I reported a bug in rreport version
> | 5.0.14.
> |
> | The bug was finally fixed in version 5.0.15.
> |
> | I was told I would have to download a license file from fptech for each
> | customer of mine and then install that file on their system.   OK,
> | that's a pain, but to get this bug fixed I would go the extra mile.
> | I've had a customer complaining about it for over two years.  Anyhow, I
> | put 5.0.15 rreport on the first (7) customer systems and guess what...
> | it will work on only (1) of them.  Why?  Because the license manager
> | code you grafted into 5.0.15 rreport requires the /usr/lib/libm.so.1 and
> | related stuff to run.  FP support tells me that to use 5.0.15 rreport
> | the customer has to have support level supplement 646 installed on their
> | SCO Unix operating system.
> |
> | So I'm faced with a situation where I now have to tell my customers to
> | fix a bug they've been complaining about for over 2 years, they now have
> | to get their system integrator to come in and patch their operating
> | system
> |
> | I really think it was a poor decision to implement this stuff in the way
> | it was.  A bug fix release that was so long in coming should not require
> | me or my customers to jump through hoops.
>
> <dissent>
> So you've got customers running on OSR 5.0.[56]; every such system I've
> touched has oss646c installed.  If you don't think your customers should
> upgrade to 5.0.7 or 6.0.0, then at least take advantage of oss646c.  I
> can't see why one should be anything but thankful for that patch, since
> it allows lots of other binaries besides filePro's to run.
> </dissent>
>
> -- 
> JP
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>