Bill's Boycott - was Open Letter to Rev: Quality Is Job #1 (Vista Install)
wjm at wjm.org
Fri Oct 20 22:04:34 EDT 2006
> Bill, I don't agree with your 'boycott' on license updates and will not
> join you in your pugilistic and confrontational campaign.
I object to the term "boycott." I never called for a boycott; never even
used the word. I'm simply stating what is a basic, if not obvious, consumer
principle: I'm not going to buy a product that is broken. But, I'm eager to
purchase the update pack WHEN they release a version I feel confident using.
A boycott In my mind is something you use to coerce a company to stop using
sweatshop labor, stop investing in an oppressive country, or putting
advertisements in a particular magazine -- something unrelated to the
product itself. And it involves persuading others to do the same. I haven't
suggested anyone else "join me" in not updating their Rev license. My letter
was to Rev, not to users. (But I did point out many leading Rev developers
are sticking with 2.6.1 for some reason.) Let me make it absolutely clear--
if you like Rev 2.7.x PLEASE buy the update packs.
Your post complaining about my Vista reference is a red herring in the sense
it tries to change the topic from 2.7.x's fundamental instability to
compatibility with "unreleased" operating systems.
> The only thing that will improve Rev will be for as many people as
> possible to support the continued development of Revolution by subscribing
> to the updates.
Well, I will admit they have a "chicken and egg" problem. If they can't get
more resources they can't improve the product. And if they can't improve the
product they won't get sales. If they don't get sales they won't get more
cash for resources. I suggest the answer is somewhere in the vicinity of:
1) Rev commits to free bug fixes to current/new licenses until 2.7.x is
"right." That includes a 2.7 version for Linux.
2) They institute a "bug bounty" program or some other mechanism to improve
their awareness of stability issues and compensate users for the effort of
tracking down bugs.
3) They immediately sign up for the free WER program from Microsoft so they
can better identify and more quickly eliminate crashes.
> You act like Rev can afford a staff of Beta testers in house all the time.
No, in order to be a beta tester, you have to be an Enterprise licensee
(i.e., pay through the nose for the privilege). Actually, it seems we're
supposed to keep paying for Rev update packs even if the releases are beta
quality. Oh, plus work as much on troubleshooting and bug reporting for Rev
as we do on our own products.
More information about the Use-livecode