On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 07:11 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote: > Herbert Graf wrote: > > Ok, what the heck are you talking about? When did I say anything about > > getting something for nothing? I would GLADLY go with another vendor > > that cost the same, or even more, as long as their "protections" don't > > cause risk to what I'm doing. > > But that's not one of the choices, at least not for the same feature level > of software. As I said, the best alternate software, which also happens to > be free, costs $25/week in lost productivity and unhappy employees. I'm > trying to get you to make hard choices just like in real life. You don't > get to define a new choice where everything is the way you want. Olin, you are CRAFTING a situation to force me to give you an answer you want. I'm not going to do that. You're talking about "real life", yet you modified your first post when I gave an answer you "didn't consider". Is that real life? Some uber creature comes in and changes the situation at their whim? I've already said there HAVE been cases where we've had to go with software that forces certain protections that we don't like, why do you need more? > > (and there are alot of open source > > options out there that are easily as good as commercial apps, often > > better. A perfect example is apache). > > Not in this case. A case which ISN'T real life, but instead is something you've created to get me to say something you want me to. > > The fact that you are automatically equating: open source=crap > > software > > tells me that you are not very familiar with open source, and > > therefore > > I think it's a little irresponsible of you to comment on that portion > > of > > the software world. > > I wasn't and I didn't. This is a single hypothetical case. In this > instance the open source software is "softof good enough" as I said, and > costs you $25/week as I also already said. Specifically you said: "Find some open source software that's sortof good enough." The way you said it CLEARLY seems to indicate you don't think there is ever open source software that's as good as closed source. It doesn't matter what you MEANT to say, it only matters WHAT you said. > Again you don't know how the dongle development is being paid for, but it > could very well be paid for by the dongle only licenses, which would > actually be a smart way for the vendor to set his prices. You certainly > have no evidence to the contrary. Would it change your choice if I > stipulated that the vendor is indeed funding the dongle development only > from the dongle license sales, or would you still not buy the unencumbered > license strictly due to the mere existance of the dongle license? Mere existence. There is ZERO chance that none of my money would be used to fund the "dongle program", not matter what "assurances" are made. Sales people lie, ALL the time. They will say WHATEVER they can to get a sale, promising me that my money isn't going to go towards dongle development is easy to say, impossible for me to prove otherwise, and worth less then the piece of paper it's written on. > > Olin, WHY are you putting words in my mouth? > > You're being vague and not directly answering the question, so I'm trying to > paraphrase what you are saying in a way relevant to the question posed. > This is hard to do since you haven't directly answered the question. You're > doing a lot of chest beating but haven't made any hard choices yet. Stand > up and be counted, then they're be nothing for me to misinterpret. Hehe, you sound like there's a war and I'm a dissenter. I've ALREADY stated that there have been cases where we've had to go with a vendor using stupidly restrictive "protections", and that we've been ROYALLY burned by them. Why do you need me to say I would possibly be put in a situation where I'd have to make that mistake again? > > And I rejected it because the company will use my money to develop > > their dongle crap. > > OK, so I guess you're saying you're willing to take a $25/week hit and annoy > your employees on the principle that the alternative might fund development > of dongle protection. Depends, $25/week is pretty much nothing, so I might be willing to risk it. Employees will ALWAYS be annoyed, no matter what choice you make, so that's a non issue. Reason being in the end we'd at least have a tool that worked well enough (since we'd be able to fix the problems with it that we encounter) and would never "disappear" because the vendor didn't like the way we brushed our teeth. OTOH if the cost were higher, or deadlines tighter, we'd have to consider the other vendor. > > Again, I've wasted HUNDREDS of hours due to issues like this, as a > > result I will avoid any company (as much as possible) that uses crap > > like that. People always say "vote with your dollars", why are you > > attacking me because that's exactly what I do? > > I'm not attacking you, just trying to nail down exactly how you are voting > with your dollars. No Olin. I've CLEARLY stating how I'm voting with my dollars. You're doing what you always do. You've encountered someone who disagrees with something you seem to be very passionate about. You craft a theoretical situation, that the person gets around. Then you "recraft" the theoretical situation to "entrap" the "dissenter", using words like "real world" and "hard choices" to try and convince that person that your theoretical situation is happening right now. You have ZERO interest in seeing my point of view, all you want is to "win" by getting me to say what you want me to say. That's NOT how debates are run in my part of the world, and I won't play your game. You certainly have every right to have your opinion, but to try and force your opinion on someone in this way is not acceptable to me. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist