Subscription questions...

[Richard Kreiss]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Filepro-list [mailto:filepro-list-
> bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com] On Behalf Of Fairlight
via
> Filepro-list
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:38 PM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: Subscription questions...
> 
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:21:56PM -0400, Kenneth Brody thus spoke:
> > On 3/14/2016 12:42 PM, Fairlight via Filepro-list wrote:
> > [...]
> > >What's the deal with the subscriptions they moved to?  Say you buy in
> > >at
> > >5.8 right now.  Say there's a bug in 5.8, and they release 5.8.1 in a
> > >few months.  Are you stuck with that buggy 5.8 without a
> > >subscription, or are you good through all of 5.8.  What I've seen so
> > >far in the past leads me to believe you're screwed without a
subscription.
> > [...]
> >
> > No, you'll get all the bugfix updates without the subscription, but
> > you won't get the new features of later interim releases.
> >
> > For example, you bought 5.8.00, and there are bugs that are fixed.
> > You'll be able to download the 5.8.00.01 bugfix update, but not the
> > 5.8.01 (or later) interim releases with new features.  You will
> > continue to be able to get 5.8.00.xx bugfixes as long as 5.8 is still
> > being updated.
> 
> Thanks for the answer, Ken.
> 
> This makes it clear that I'm not comfortable with the current release
practises.
> You have bugs left in 5.0.14/5.0.15 yet, and the only thing you do is
point
> people towards the purchase page for the latest version.  It's not like
the last
> 5.0 or even 5.6 were without bugs - sometimes even major ones.  I know of
at
> least one major one to do with record locking and lookups.  Don't start me
on
> blobs.
> 
> I went, "No Sale," right about, "[...] as long as x.x is still being
updated."  I do
> stop support on my own product's own major versions after a certain point.
But
> I also have -zero- credible bug reports for five plus years prior,
generally.
> 
> filePro is a bit closer to Serif's practises, and I dropped Serif for
> -exactly- this reason.  They'd sneeze on the guts, revamp the UI, and stop
> supporting the last version before it was even stable.  I hate that.
> 
> So you're not immediately screwed, you're just deferred screwed whenever
> someone decides, "Ah, that's enough for that version."  And all trust and
> goodwill on that point went out the window when a security update was
> withheld for fPcgi 2.0 instead of rolling it into 1.x, as I recall the way
things
> went.  I always disagreed with that move, and it just reinforces my
feelings
> now.
> 
> Well, I appreciate the answer.  Thanks.
> 
> mark->

If memory serves, fpTech announced (Bud) that they were freezing filePro
development between 5.0 and 5.6 release to correct as many of the bugs as
they could to create a "stable platform".  This meant that there were no
interim bug fixes after 5.0.15 which had the license manager.  Therefore
when 5.6 was rolled out, it contained most or all of the bug fixes and had
some new features. One complaint from many of you was that it took too long
for new releases to come out.  

Also, I think that we got used to getting maintenance releases with free
upgraded functionality.  To run a viable business, you can't keep giving
away product.  This added functionality costs money to create and as a
business one would expect to profit from these enhancements.  FpTech changed
their business model to allow them to put out enhanced version and have cash
flow so as to stay in business.  Personally I like the idea of the
subscription as it gives me a chance to proactively test and see how the new
functionality would work with my client's application. I am now running
5.8.01.03 and have tested the mirroring and the auto index with the built in
selection set.  One of my large clients upgraded to the subscription program
already and another will shortly.  One needs the index functionality the
other mirroring.  I do realize that the license manage makes it difficult or
impossible to sell and deliver a "canned" package.  

As for maintenance releases, what is a reasonable time period for creating
maintenance releases for an older version?  Should they still be doing
maintenance release on 5.0 or 5.6 or maybe just 5.6 and above.  Maybe I
should have asked the question "What is a reasonable length of time for the
end of life for a particular release version?" I think most software
companies will go back 1 release; although some may do 2.  That would be
having to maintain the current version and 1 to 2 older versions.  This
would be a big financial drain on any company having to keep a programming
staff working on 2 or 3 versions of the software.  

Richard Kreiss