Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!hao!hull From: hull@hao.UCAR.EDU (Howard Hull) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: DMCS "quiet" upgrade ... sleazy business practices Message-ID: <612@hao.UCAR.EDU> Date: Thu, 30-Apr-87 09:58:37 EDT Article-I.D.: hao.612 Posted: Thu Apr 30 09:58:37 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 2-May-87 08:32:58 EDT References: <6411@amdahl.UUCP> Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 77 Keywords: DMCS Electronic Arts sleazy upgrade quiet silent business Summary: maintaining functional capacity in an upgraded environment In article <6411@amdahl.UUCP>, kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) writes: > > Seems that Electronic Arts is also being sleazy with a "quiet" > update to DMCS, in addition to the one reported here on DPaintII. >... > Wonder if the "E" in Electronic Arts will be offset as is reported for > DPaintII? Anybody besides me feel these "quiet upgrades" are a sleazy > way of doing business? > I do not believe that this method of upgrading is, in itself, sleazy. The improvement of a software product is a somewhat iterative process. As soon as a change is made, it needs to be tested in the application environment. Most software houses do what they can to make a respectable test set, but all are well aware that nothing models the perversity of the users quite so well as the users themselves. It is thus useful to sample intermediate products to the most active users before committing to the distribution of an unmitigated disaster. Usually such releases are identified as such, but it is thought by some to be more prudent to avoid a declarative stance, and to just try to field a product which seems to survive the test of increased distribution over time. It therefore may not be a good idea to pound on the software house for an upgrade, only then to discover that you have become a beta test site without really desiring to be one. So just ask yourself whether DP or DCMS is doing for you what you expect. If it isn't, then call them and tell them how their representation of the product misled you. Urge them to make the product live up to your expectations. As a "for instance", caste your jaundiced eyes upon the following: When I bought the full bore Manx Aztec compiler I was assured that the price included a reasonable level of software maintenance. As you all know, version 3.40a has been in the hands of the most active programmers for some time now. That's ok with me; as long as I don't notice any problems with my stuff, I'm better off not getting involved with the beta testing of the product. But there comes a time, as happened the other day (when out of sheer curiousity) I attempted to compile the latest PD version of "make", when one gets into difficulty. Please observe the following mess - cc -Damiga -Daztec -o make.o make.c Aztec C68K 3.20a 02-25-86 (C) 1982,83,84,85,86 by Manx Software, Inc. #define TRUE (1) ^ h.h:18: WARNING 114: macro redefined: TRUE #define FALSE (0) ^ h.h:19: WARNING 114: macro redefined: FALSE dos_packet(task, ACTION_SET_DATE, NULL, plock, (ULONG) &poin ^ make.c:413: ERROR 34: undefined symbol: ACTION_SET_DATE for (qdp = (struct depend *) 0, lp = np->n_line; lp; lp = l ^ make.c:453: WARNING 124: invalid ptr/ptr assignment: qdp = (struct depend *) 0; ^ make.c:463: WARNING 124: invalid ptr/ptr assignment: 1 errors exit code 4 Now this is what I define as an "upgrade crisis". Do I or do I not read the defines as amiga and manx... Does the compiler seem comfortable with the situation? Nosiree... So, one way or another, what I have shown you above is, (regardless of how innocent Manx may be of any deliberate laxity) more in tune with a notion of "sleazy" business practice than is not having the latest greatest version of EA DMCS. So tell me now, what was it you were trying to do with DMCS that didn't go as you liked, that you found in the product description or advertisement, or that you called them about to get action, but for which they seem to have responded to everyone but you with a clandestine upgrade? As I said, I don't want to become a Manx beta test site. I hope that they will soon send me an upgrade, and what's more I hope it won't be the same upgrade the rest of you got four months ago that has the The Three Bugs in it. Their compliance with this sweet notion of mine is what will decide for me whether their business practices are sleazy or not... Howard Hull [If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion... ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts] {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!hull for domain mailers: hull@hao.ucar.edu