Wake up
theo
But here's my opinion again (I know you won't care)
I'm not talking about your software but really:
- The distribution channels seem - I don't know - old fashioned is the
most polite word I can find for it.
- I told you years ago that I won't buy your software again when it
needs Activation or Registration. OK that's just me.
It really really looks like you want to punish your old and loyal customers.
Hey! The Software World is changing. People are getting used to download
and install Netbeans, Lazarus etc.without such fuss.
Why are you putting obstacles in the way for people who really would
spend some money for your products if only the process of buying and
"activating" your product wouldn't make them puke already?
Yes, I know, I should have said nothing like all the others who silently
say goodbye to you.
But it's sad. Please, please wake up. I like Delphi.
JohnE
> needs Activation or Registration. OK that's just me.
>
You are complaining that Codegear has old fashioned distribution channel,
but you complain of activation? Pahhh lease.
John
.
David M
People are more likely to take your comments for real when you post as
a real person.
Cheers
D
David Moorhouse
Moorhouse Works ltd
www.moorhouse.co.nz
Chris Burrows
news:46146c74$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> You are complaining that Codegear has old fashioned distribution channel,
> but you complain of activation?
What is so strange about that? The symptoms of both problems are the same:
* An old fashioned distribution system can delay a customer's access to the
software.
* An online activation system can delay (or in extreme circumstances,
prohibit) a customer's access to the software.
Activation systems are not inherently bad. However, the Internet-based
CodeGear activation system is worse than many as it is not just a one-off
problem at the time of receipt, but an ongoing issue every time that you
need to do an installation.
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/gpcp
ZJ
news:06s8135708lo6ugge...@4ax.com...
> Hi nos...@for.me
> People are more likely to take your comments for real when you post as
> a real person.
Can you prove that ?
Shouldn't it read: *Some* people are...
Are you sure that author of the post is not aware about the above?
My personal bias is that I dont really care who is behind the scene,
more important is what the person has to communicate.
Also, I honor the choice of privacy, unless it is used to abuse of course.
Regards,
Zenon
TObject
"David M" <borlandnewsWITHNO@SPAM_OR_JUNKmoorhouse.co.nz> wrote in message news:06s8135708lo6ugge...@4ax.com...
> People are more likely to take your comments for real when you post as
> a real person.
So, if I change my posting name from TObject to James Miller
you will start taking my comments seriously? :-)
Oliver
> you will start taking my comments seriously? :-)
Well at least TObject is witty.
Oliver TOwnshend
Mark Andrews (The Other One)
> I'm not talking about your software but really:
> - The distribution channels seem - I don't know - old fashioned is the
> most polite word I can find for it.
Yeah, I'd rather deal with CodeGear directly.
> - I told you years ago that I won't buy your software again when it
> needs Activation or Registration. OK that's just me.
If you're a one-man-band, knock yourself out. If you're making
purchasing decisions for a team of developers I'd want a little more
logic and a lot less ideology.
> It really really looks like you want to punish your old and loyal customers.
Oh, please.
> Why are you putting obstacles in the way for people who really would
> spend some money for your products if only the process of buying and
> "activating" your product wouldn't make them puke already?
Every day I face development and design "obstacles" much bigger than
bloody software activation.
> Yes, I know, I should have said nothing like all the others who silently
> say goodbye to you.
I never base a software purchasing decision on how hard it is to
activate the software or whether it needs to be registered. My decision
is based on (a) how suitable it is for its intended purpose, and (b) how
productive we can be with the software (as opposed to competing products).
I know some hobbyist programmers for whom your concerns may be relevant,
but if your software products are paying the salary of several
developers (hell, even ONE developer), you want the best tools. It seems
petulant to ignore a product because of some ideological hangup about
activation and registration.
Get a life.
Cheers,
Mark.
David M
>
>So, if I change my posting name from TObject to James Miller
>you will start taking my comments seriously? :-)
>
No, but at least we can call TObject.Free ;)
David M
>Can you prove that ?
>Shouldn't it read: *Some* people are...
>Are you sure that author of the post is not aware about the above?
Actually, if I was in the business of selling developer tools, I'd
listen more to the people who front up with their complaints or
criticism's, rather than some anonymous non-specific contradictory
complaints. Reread the o.p. message.
>
>My personal bias is that I dont really care who is behind the scene,
>more important is what the person has to communicate.
Signal to noise ratio is more important than anything else.
You might have noticed that it can vary wildly in this ng.
>Also, I honor the choice of privacy, unless it is used to abuse of course.
???
theo
I am a real person.
Mark Reichert
> TObject wrote
>
>>
>>So, if I change my posting name from TObject to James Miller
>>you will start taking my comments seriously? :-)
>>
> No, but at least we can call TObject.Free ;)
Under .Net, garbage collection would haul him away automatically...as long
as no one was speaking to him..I think. :)
-
> No, but at least we can call TObject.Free ;)
HA!
Steve Thackery
> about activation and registration.
It's not about petulance. The thing is, with the best will in the world,
who knows whether CodeGear will exist in ten year's time? Or Borland?
My employer is still using systems with software developed 25 years ago, and
yes, it has maintained the original development environment; and yes, the
software is still being updated with new functionality here and there.
My employer is unwilling to invest in a development environment that might
not work in a few year's time because the vendor has gone out of business,
or had a change of policy, or I'm having to work on a standalone development
system for security reasons (not uncommon), etc.
Let's be honest, what problem is CodeGear's activation system supposed to be
solving, really? Is piracy of CodeGear software really an issue? If so, is
activation really the answer? The proper bad guys will be sharing hacked,
activation-free versions anyway.
Please, Nick, would you give this policy a review?
Steve
Mark Andrews (The Other One)
> My employer is unwilling to invest in a development environment that might
> not work in a few year's time because the vendor has gone out of business,
And your favourite supplier of activationless, registrationless software
could just as easily decide to institute a policy of activation and
registration in 12 months time. Would you then jump ship?
As for a vendor going out of business... Well, we all need to make the
tough decisions there. If CodeGear went down the toilet tomorrow, we
expect to function normally for several years, giving us plenty of time
to fine-tune our exit strategy.
We still develop in Delphi 7 (released nearly 5 years ago) and are only
now planning to upgrade to Delphi 2007 as this is the most compelling
release since D7. YMMV.
Cheers,
Mark.
nopost@nopost
> Is piracy of CodeGear software really an issue?
Of course.
Codegear products are widely pirated.
> Please, Nick, would you give this policy a review?
The BOD would have to make a decision on the policy.
Not something that a mere product manager can decide.
That is for the BORED to decode.
But SOX might prevent him from telling you what they decided.
Since it might affect forward earnings estimates and all that jazz.
Chris Burrows
news:4614feeb$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> As for a vendor going out of business... Well, we all need to make the
> tough decisions there. If CodeGear went down the toilet tomorrow, we
> expect to function normally for several years, giving us plenty of time to
> fine-tune our exit strategy.
>
> We still develop in Delphi 7 (released nearly 5 years ago) and are only
> now planning to upgrade to Delphi 2007 as this is the most compelling
> release since D7. YMMV.
>
How do you plan to keep running Delphi 2007 for several years if CodeGears
activation servers have 'gone down the toilet' with them?
The only foolproof (?) contingency plan that I have been able to come up,
which caters for all possible scenarios, is to then revert to D7
nopost@nopost
> How do you plan to keep running Delphi 2007 for several years if CodeGears
> activation servers have 'gone down the toilet' with them?
A foolproof mutual suicide plan is in our road map.
When Codegears activation servers die, our company dies and we blow out
our brains :-)
Mark Andrews (The Other One)
> "Mark Andrews (The Other One)" wrote
>> As for a vendor going out of business... Well, we all need to make the
>> tough decisions there. If CodeGear went down the toilet tomorrow, we
>> expect to function normally for several years, giving us plenty of time to
>> fine-tune our exit strategy.
>
> activation servers have 'gone down the toilet' with them?
That's what I mean by tough decisions. It's simply not possible to plan
for every contingency and you need to trade off pragmatism against
extreme risk aversion. (Not always easy for engineers.)
Our own assessment is that it would have to be some sort of extreme
meltdown event to prevent developers activating their CodeGear software.
It's not at all clear that Delphi would suddenly cease to exist. Borland
or perhaps Delphi's fire-sale purchaser would certainly have a vested
interest in exploiting the customer base and cutting them free makes no
sense.
So, that's a risk we live with, but have no control over.
The pragmatic side of the equation is that we have about a million lines
of code spread over a handful of products. At the moment there's no
truly compelling case for us to port this to some other development tool
set.
> The only foolproof (?) contingency plan that I have been able to come up,
> which caters for all possible scenarios, is to then revert to D7
Agreed, this would be the doomsday scenario.
Cheers,
Mark.
Tom Corey
> Hey! The Software World is changing. People are getting used to
> download and install Netbeans, Lazarus etc.without such fuss.
Ever see the fuss people raised about having to install .NET?
No matter what Codegear does, someone will find reason to bitch about
it.
Fernando Madruga
> The only foolproof (?) contingency plan that I have been able to come up,
> which caters for all possible scenarios, is to then revert to D7
Actually, there's another one that is also very good: install a clean
copy of D2007 on a clean Virtual machine and proceed to activate it. You
can even make some snapshots should you at some point in time require to
go back to a specific state. And no matter what main machine you're
using, you can always fire up that VM and work there...
Fernando Madruga
> Steve Thackery wrote:
>> My employer is unwilling to invest in a development environment that
>> might not work in a few year's time because the vendor has gone out of
>> business, or had a change of policy [...]
>
> And your favourite supplier of activationless, registrationless software
> could just as easily decide to institute a policy of activation and
> registration in 12 months time. Would you then jump ship?
He might at least keep the current version and skip the upgrades. At
least he has that option...
> We still develop in Delphi 7 (released nearly 5 years ago) and are only
> now planning to upgrade to Delphi 2007 as this is the most compelling
> release since D7. YMMV.
That's your call, but if you skipped BDS 2005/6 for obvious reasons, I'd
say wait a few more months and go to the new RAD Studio instead...
somebody
> Hi nos...@for.me
> People are more likely to take your comments for real when you post as
> a real person.
True as it is, this behaviour is utterly illogical. Say, I could very easily
make up a fake but authentic looking name, and a fake but authentic looking
e-mail address, and even a fake but authentic looking degree and company
affiliation... etc. And without verifying any of those - or even having no
practically feasible prospect of verifying any of those, people would indeed
take me more seriously, even though I am being more honest right now by
posting under an explicitly anonymous identity. People are strange with
their false sense of security and trust. I guess that's the same phenomenon
at play when people assume open source software is less buggy, even when
there's no indication whatsoever that more than one person ever looked at
the source.
Steve Thackery
> Codegear products are widely pirated.
OK, but is activation the best answer?
Steve
Steve Thackery
> could just as easily decide to institute a policy of activation and
> registration in 12 months time. Would you then jump ship?
With respect, Mark, you've missed the point I'm making.
We've ALREADY got the development environment in place. If necessary we can
move it to a different hardware platform, or reinstall, it or whatever
(indeed this has happened more than once over those 25 years). We don't
know or care what happens to the original vendor.
> As for a vendor going out of business... Well, we all need to make the
> tough decisions there. If CodeGear went down the toilet tomorrow, we
> expect to function normally for several years, giving us plenty of time to
> fine-tune our exit strategy.
Not if you need CodeGear to be there to activate your software if/when you
need to reinstall it, you won't!
> We still develop in Delphi 7 (released nearly 5 years ago) and are only
> now planning to upgrade to Delphi 2007 as this is the most compelling
> release since D7.
I completely agree about D2007. But D7 doesn't need activation, so you
could easily use it in 25 years' time, provided you've maintained a hardware
platform for it (which we routinely do). D2007 DOES need activation, and
who knows whether that facility will be available by then?
Please note, I'm NOT saying CodeGear is going belly up any time soon! And
I'm absolutely certain Nick and his team geniunely mean to keep that
activation server working indefinitely. This note is not intended to be
FUD. But my personal judgement, and Nick's undoubted professionalism, don't
cut any ice with my employer (not enough ice, anyway).
They want some kind of assurance that the product they've invested in will
work no matter what happens to CodeGear. As I say, ten years is a long time
in this industry, never mind twenty five. CodeGear may have been subject to
a hostile takeover, asset stripped, or who knows what?
Steve
Martyn Ayers
>I never base a software purchasing decision on how hard it is to activate
Perhaps you haven't been burnt by activation yet, or perhaps your
business doesn't depend on using a specific s/ware tool when you need
to.
Case in point:
A few years ago I purchased a certain 3rd party (not Delphi-specific,
but for a Delphi project that happens to be my life's work)) s/ware
tool that was supposed to be a brand leader in a very niche market.
When I went register it, it turned out that it required a
hardware-specific key. I phoned the author to point out that this
wasn't stafisfactory from my pov and his reply, almost verbatim, was
"Where's the problem? I'll give you as many keys as you need for the
different computers you use, and in any case I've made an escrow
arrangement so you'd still be able to get them even if I did go bust."
A few years on and that author is nowhere to be seen and when, out of
curiousity I contacted his "escrow provider", the answer was that he'd
never paid their charges in the first place.
Luckily, I never did anything with the tool in question.
What is so sad about this is that the nature of my app means that my
firm spends "whatever it costs" to continue developing it. Every year
we spend (literally) 000s of dollars with 3rd party library suppliers
to keep up to date, but nothing with Borland/CodeGear all the while it
maintains its activation policy. It would be nice to have the latest
and greatest in what recent Delphi versions have to offer, *but* D5
works for us, so why take the risk?
Cheers, Martyn
Cheers, Martyn
David Erbas-White
> firm spends "whatever it costs" to continue developing it. Every year
> we spend (literally) 000s of dollars with 3rd party library suppliers
> to keep up to date, but nothing with Borland/CodeGear all the while it
Well, there's your problem!!!
You're spending the same amount on 3rd-party libraries as you are on
CodeGear!
David Erbas-White
David M
>I am a real person.
For sure, you pass the Turing test.
You do not appear to be an automaton.
Martyn Ayers
Arf!
(The subtle difference being that what we spend with 3rd parties
doesn't have a zero as the most significant digit.)
Cheers, Martyn
Markus.Humm
> Steve Thackery wrote:
>> My employer is unwilling to invest in a development environment that
>> might not work in a few year's time because the vendor has gone out of
>> business, or had a change of policy [...]
>
> And your favourite supplier of activationless, registrationless software
> could just as easily decide to institute a policy of activation and
> registration in 12 months time. Would you then jump ship?
>
Hm, who forces you to upgrade then? You can try to freeze to this version.
Greetings
Markus
PS: I wonder what became of Nicks proposal to reveal their (CG) plan of
ensuring activation or so even if CG would cease to exist. Haven't
heared about this now since weeks. After shipping D2007 he should find
time for that publication now I think...
Rick Carter
>PS: I wonder what became of Nicks proposal to reveal their (CG) plan of
>ensuring activation or so even if CG would cease to exist. Haven't
>heared about this now since weeks. After shipping D2007 he should find
>time for that publication now I think...
I don't think finding the time is the problem. This is reading between
the lines somewhat, but my suspicion is that Nick couldn't get permission
to post the policy publicly. Another case of "Oh, we have a plan. We
just can't tell you about it."
Rick Carter
cart...@despammed.com
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com
Oliver
> easily
> make up a fake but authentic looking name, and a fake but authentic
> looking
> e-mail address, and even a fake but authentic looking degree and company
> affiliation... etc. And without verifying any of those - or even having no
> practically feasible prospect of verifying any of those, people would
> indeed
> take me more seriously, even though I am being more honest right now by
> posting under an explicitly anonymous identity. People are strange with
> their false sense of security and trust. I guess that's the same
> phenomenon
> at play when people assume open source software is less buggy, even when
> there's no indication whatsoever that more than one person ever looked at
> the source.
You're missing the real point. If they meet you at a Codegear conference,
they aren't going to shout you a beer if they don't recognize your name :)
Oliver Townshend
Oliver
> as no one was speaking to him..I think. :)
LOL!
Oliver
David Clegg
> You're missing the real point. If they meet you at a Codegear
> conference, they aren't going to shout you a beer if they don't
> recognize your name :)
Very good point.
Signed,
David Clegg
Yes, that is my real name. In case you missed it, that name was David
Clegg. Like 'egg' but with a 'Cl' at front, and David is so common that
it shouldn't need any further explanation. But just to be sure, that's
like 'a' but with 'D' at the front and 'vid' at the end. And just in
case the nametags are printed in uppercase, that would be DAVID CLEGG.
I also go by the following names :-
Dave
Cleggy
Cleggmeister
Anyone want a beer? I'm buying.
(I ain't taking no risks ;-))
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
http://cc.codegear.com/Author/72299
QualityCentral. The best way to bug CodeGear about bugs.
http://qc.codegear.com
"They have the Internet on computers now?" - Homer Simpson
nospam
> A few years on and that author is nowhere to be seen and when, out of
> curiousity I contacted his "escrow provider", the answer was that he'd
> never paid their charges in the first place.
Codegear would never do that to you.
I am sure that they have paid their escrow charges.
Look at how professionally they manage everything else.
Hmm...on further consideration of that point...
Nick, are you sure that the escrow charges have been paid ?
Could you check and let us know ?
Actually you never did tell us if escrow arrangements were in place.
You said that "it is being discussed"
nospam
>> PS: I wonder what became of Nicks proposal to reveal their (CG) plan of
>> ensuring activation or so even if CG would cease to exist. Haven't
>> heared about this now since weeks.
> my suspicion is that Nick couldn't get permission
> to post the policy publicly. Another case of "Oh, we have a plan. We
> just can't tell you about it."
Unfortunately, plans like this are only worthwhile if customers are told
about them.
David Erbas-White
Here's what's worse:
During the online chat with Jim Douglas yesterday, I asked explicitly
what was being done about software activation issues. Nick Hodges (in
an earlier post) made reference to the fact that Jim Douglas was well
aware of the concerns that folks had based on comments/reviews of
newsgroup postings.
However, in regards to the software activation concerns, he was
completely clueless (his response was along the lines of "what's that
(software activation)? And why is it a problem?"
Yes, I know he's new. But you don't 'face the public' as he did in the
chat session yesterday without boning up on the concerns that your
audience is facing. I didn't get any warm fuzzies from that session...
David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White
> He is obviously a responsive and good manager.
> He was interested in your problem. Of COURSE, he doesnt know about it.
> He managed a EDA firm before and has no knowledge of consumer level
> software.
As manager of an EDA firm, he, of all people, should know about software
activation. EDA software is one of the primary users of software
activation (along with hardware dongles). It's used FAR more often in
that end of the business than at the 'consumer' level of things like
CodeGear products. For him to be unaware of problems/concerns with it
left me shaking my head.
>
> But give him time. In the 5 months that he has left, he will streamline
> innovative e-business initiatives that will facilitate cutting-edge
> holistic synergies.
Well, having after I wrote the above, I see that your 'cynicism-o-meter'
is turned up to about the same level mine is... <G>
David Erbas-White
Rob Al
> what was being done about software activation issues. Nick Hodges (in
> an earlier post) made reference to the fact that Jim Douglas was well
> aware of the concerns that folks had based on comments/reviews of
> newsgroup postings.
>
> However, in regards to the software activation concerns, he was
> completely clueless (his response was along the lines of "what's that
> (software activation)? And why is it a problem?"
He is obviously a responsive and good manager.
He was interested in your problem. Of COURSE, he doesnt know about it.
He managed a EDA firm before and has no knowledge of consumer level
software.
But give him time. In the 5 months that he has left, he will streamline
David Erbas-White
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> Nick Hodges (in an earlier post) made reference to the fact that Jim
>> Douglas was well aware of the concerns that folks had based on
>> comments/reviews of newsgroup postings.
>
>
I thought so -- I'll search and report back...
David Erbas-White
Rob Al
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> Douglas was well aware of the concerns that folks had based on
>> comments/reviews of newsgroup postings.
>
I dont remember any such thing.In fact it is likely that Jim doesnt even
know that Codegear have a newsserver.
That is low level stuff that incoming CEOs dont need to learn on Day 1.
Or ever, if they get shuffled out after 5 months.
Rob Al
>> But give him time. In the 5 months that he has left, he will
>> streamline innovative e-business initiatives that will facilitate
>> cutting-edge holistic synergies.
> Well, having after I wrote the above, I see that your 'cynicism-o-meter'
> is turned up to about the same level mine is... <G>
Well, if the Board feel that 5 months is not enough time for him to
strategize transparent partnerships, then they will leverage his
position, sack him and architect another revolutionary new CEO to
create a win-win situation.
David Erbas-White
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> Douglas was well aware of the concerns that folks had based on
>> comments/reviews of newsgroup postings.
>
>
Well, I (slightly) misspoke. Fernando Madruga indicated that Jim should
peruse the newsgroups, and you responded that he is well aware of the
issues. Message copied here:
> Fernando Madruga wrote:
>
>>> > >
>> > Get Jim to have a look at the newsgroups and see how many posters are
>> > not happy about it either: since many of those are real customers,
>> > maybe he'll be more sensitive to those issues and find a way around
>> > it! :)
>
> Jim is well aware of the issues. Tons of people are working lots and
> lots of hours to work around all of this.
>
> -- Nick Hodges
In my memory, I had 'remembered' that as Jim having perused the
newsgroups -- but what it does show is that Jim is NOT well aware of the
issues.
And as I outlined, as a former EDA person he OUGHT to be well aware of
software activation issues/problems.
I apologize for having mis-stated the explicit response, but the 'gist'
of my point remains true.
David Erbas-White
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> Nick Hodges (in an earlier post) made reference to the fact that Jim
> Douglas was well aware of the concerns that folks had based on
> comments/reviews of newsgroup postings.
I did?
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> Message copied here:
Just to clarify, the thing that I said Jim was well aware of was the
rev rec issues and how it affects our ability, or rather, inability to
publish a roadmap.
Rob Al
> Just to clarify, the thing that I said Jim was well aware of was the
> rev rec issues and how it affects our ability, or rather, inability to
> publish a roadmap.
Does this also impact on your inability to talk about Escrow Arrangements ?
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> Does this also impact on your inability to talk about Escrow
> Arrangements ?
I don't believe that SOX does that, now. Though I know nothing of
escrow arrangements.
David Erbas-White
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> Message copied here:
>
> Just to clarify, the thing that I said Jim was well aware of was the
> rev rec issues and how it affects our ability, or rather, inability to
> publish a roadmap.
>
The message I was responding to (and copied) referred to 'it', and your
response was 'issues' (plural). I recognize (now, anyway, after
attempting to trace back through the original thread <G>) that Fernando
was referring to SOX and revenue received as 'it', but your response
referring to 'issues' (plural) led me to believe (especially based on
the context of the question referring to Jim reviewing the newsgroups)
that he was aware of the 'issues' (plural) that are affecting customers.
IMHO, one of the major 'issues' is software activation. If he is NOT
aware of the 'issue' (singular) of software activation problems, it is
my hope that he will be made AWARE of it as an 'issue'.
Since the response can also be read (and I did read it) as Jim Douglas
is aware of the 'issues' that are affecting customers, and it turns out
that your statement was only about the revenue recognition issues, then
I will plead with you (and all other Borland employees) to have Jim
Douglas be made aware of CUSTOMER CONCERNS, and not just revenue
recognition issues.
While the CEO is most directly responsible for 'fiscal issues', there
won't be any 'fiscals' to have an 'issue' with if customers don't have
their concerns addressed.
David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White
> Rob Al wrote:
>
>> Does this also impact on your inability to talk about Escrow
>> Arrangements ?
>
> I don't believe that SOX does that, now. Though I know nothing of
> escrow arrangements.
>
Who DOES have knowledge of such arrangements, so we can bug them rather
than you? <G>
David Erbas-White
P.S. Prior to saying anything further, let me add that I think you're
doing a great job, yeoman's work, above and beyond the call of duty,
etc., etc. - and I MEAN that. But if the Product Manager doesn't have
knowledge of the escrow arrangements for software activation of the
product, how in the H**L do you expect your customers to have ANY (even
one iota) of faith that the problem is not real?
Fernando Madruga
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> Message copied here:
>
> Just to clarify, the thing that I said Jim was well aware of was the
> rev rec issues and how it affects our ability, or rather, inability to
> publish a roadmap.
>
Actually, the message quoted from me with your answer was regarding yet
another issue: the ISO decision. My prompt was about getting JIM to know
about *all* issues that have been raised in here, and not only SOX
related ones.
But I *do* understand the mix-up: I for one wouldn't like to be in your
shoes! Too many people complaining about too many things that are
obviously out of your control and that make you feel uncomfortable with
that too... Others would have stopped caring and answering by now, but
you're still at it! :)
Having said just that, I'm sorry if I've been a bit "hostile", regarding
CG and Delphi 2007, but you guys need to get your act together and start
listening to us. I've said many times that I believe D2007 was rushed
out as well as D4PHP, and with the trials out, many more people will
start to get that feeling too as they start exploring the products. Of
course, then we have tons of people at CG trying to work 20h/day to tie
up those loose ends...
I wish CG and Delphi the best of luck as the last thing I want to do is
to move over to C# or something! I've grown used to Delphi as it's just
powerful enough without being too permissive and allowing one to shoot
one's foot too easily... I *don't* want to change, but that will depend
on future decisions by CG...
And that's why I complain a bit! If I go to a restaurant and I don't
like the food/service, I never set a foot there again. If I go there for
some time (meaning good food/service) and suddenly I get some bad
food/service, then I complain. If they keep at it, I stop going there as
well, but I started by complaining so as to give them a chance to "get
back on track"...
Donald Shimoda
> And that's why I complain a bit! If I go to a restaurant and I don't
> like the food/service, I never set a foot there again. If I go there
> for some time (meaning good food/service) and suddenly I get some bad
> food/service, then I complain. If they keep at it, I stop going there
> as well, but I started by complaining so as to give them a chance to
> "get back on track"...
Thats be me words for years. Borland never understand, and banned me
from newsgroups. Still hope Codegear be different. I like that i see by
now, despite that, time will say ...
--
Donald.
Rob Al
> I don't believe that SOX does that, now. Though I know nothing of
> escrow arrangements.
Does this mean that escrow arrangements do NOT exist ?
Or merely that you do not know the details of them ?
I am not sure how to interpret your statement.
Of course, nobody can reasonably expect you to know everything about
every trivial aspect of Codegrear's complex world, but your customers
have been asking for months about this issue.
David Dean [CodeGear]
"David Clegg" <dcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone want a beer? I'm buying.
I'll take one. Us Davids have to stick together. 8-)
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<http://blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>