Lets make a deal!!!!!!!!!!

[Andre Garzia]

gee what a horrible thread....


On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Dave wrote:

>
> On 17 Nov 2006, at 08:35, Bernard Devlin wrote:
>
>> Dave said
>>
>> > I think that there is a lot of silly, sometimes personal crap on
>> > this list on the odd occasion and I reckon it boils down to this:
>> >
>> > Someone relates some (usually fairly truthful) bad news about
>> > RunRev and then someone else tries to make it "all right" by
>> > relating all the good things about RunRev (that you invariably
>> > already know) or berates your apparent apathy in investigating
>> > problems
>> >  [....]
>> > Well lets all just make a deal?????
>> >
>> > No one rain on the parade and no one stop the rain from
>> > falling!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Obviously this in the context of the running dispute between you  
>> and me.
>
> Slightly, it was mostly based an earlier flame-fest which was  
> started in the "Quality #1 issue" thread I think.
>
>> I have followed this list almost every day for the past 4 years.   
>> Because I was not working with Rev every day, if people put up  
>> claims in the past (positive or negative), I would not challenge  
>> them.  As I am working with Rev every day now, if someone is going  
>> to make claims that it Rev is fundamentally buggy and that the  
>> company is in danger of going out of business because of this,
>
> There are a lot of bugs in the RunRev Engine, the IDE and the  
> documentation that have not been fixed in over three years and some  
> of them are very low level and therefore fundamental to the system.
>
>> I'm not going to let it go unchallenged.
>
> Does it make you feel better?
>>
>> What you're asking for is an end to discussion.
>
> I don't mind a discussion but lets keep it to the subject at hand  
> and not resort to mud-slinging and low beahaviour.
>
>> You are asking to be able to make exagerrated claims (positive or  
>> negative), and for these claims to go unchallenged.
>
> I don't make exagerrated claims. I don't care if they are  
> challenged or not.
>
>> I got involved in a debate with you precisely because you seem to  
>> have little hesitancy in making sweeping or false allegations  
>> (these are all from 10th Nov):
>>
>> "There is definitely a problem with "silly" bugs and lack of a  
>> clear way of finding answers to problems"
>
>>
>> "it takes a long time (more than necessary) to become a RunRev  
>> 'expert'."
>>
>> "more support effort is put into developing/fixing the Engine than  
>> the IDE."
>>
>> "something needs to be done to address the backlog of bugs and  
>> make the IDE much more stable"
>
>> "I really hope that some bugs get fixed soon and the IDE is over  
>> hauled."
>
> All the above is true, and, it seems that RunRev think that way too  
> since they are now making a bug-fix release. Hooray!
>
>> "RunRev will stop growing and eventually die."
>
> This is out of context, I think what I said was that if they didn't  
> fix some of the old bugs and address the support pricing issue it  
> would stop growing and eventually die, and I believe this to be  
> true. However, no one can say 100% what will happen, so it's really  
> not worth arguing about/discussing it.
>
>> I didn't berate you for your apathy nor indulge in "personal crap".
>
> If you say so.
>
>>   I challenged your claims, because they seem to be exaggerated  
>> and/or false.  When you actually listed one of the bugs that is a  
>> fundamental problem for you I tried to help you find out more  
>> about what is going on in that situation so that we could work  
>> together as a group to try to get that bug fixed.
>
> Everything that can be done as a 3rd party developer has been done  
> on this bug, unless you can think of something else, but from your  
> posts it doesn't seem like you can think of anything either. Apart  
> from the reasons I mentioned in another post, I also wanted to see  
> if it had been addressed in 2.7.x, it seems it hasn't. Given that  
> this problem is fundamental to the whole system and given that it  
> can take a very long time to track down and isolate, it would seem  
> reasonable that at the very least the documentation be changed to  
> include some kind of warning about the use of "me" and the  
> sharedText property in fields. This could easily have been done in  
> any of the releases since March,
>
>> But it seems that you are more interested in complaining about  
>> bugs and running down Runrev than you are in solving them and  
>> promoting Rev.
>
> The point is that there are LOADS of bugs that have been logged for  
> a LONG TIME without being fixed. Over and over we get a new release  
> with all the same bugs present plus a lot of new problems. I just  
> feel that there should be a bug-fix release, which is now going to  
> happen. I could either do nothing or voice an opinion here.
>
> I've sold 4 (I think) RunRev Licenses in the past three years, If  
> that's not "promoting Rev" then I don't know what is!  I've come  
> close to selling 4 or 5 more, but unfortunately the bugs I  
> mentioned above (along with other factors I have already mentioned)  
> prevented these sales.
>
>> Having been challenged,
>
> Sorry I didn't realize I'd been challenged! Must have missed that bit!
>
>> you're now asking that no-one rain on your your parade.   That's  
>> not a reasonable thing to ask for.
>
> I really don't give a flying hoot! It's your parade that is getting  
> rained on, in my parade it's already pouring but you seem insistent  
> that I get an umbrella in order that I don't get any more wet,  
> however, I'd rather stay wet for now and try to get something done  
> so the roof is not so leaky and therefore stay dry and cosy!
>
> All the Best
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution