| Author |
Message |
zebula8
Joined: 29 Mar 2011
Posts: 8
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:01 am Post subject: Give it back to Lutz ! |
 |
|
"..we cannot dedicate a team of developers to ensure that Reflector remains a valuable part of .NET developers’ toolboxes."
Then give it back to Lutz. He did a great job at keeping his baby a valuable part of the .NET developers' toolbox without asking for a pence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RichardD
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 44
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zebula8
Joined: 29 Mar 2011
Posts: 8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichardD
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, but there's a difference between "continue to do something" and "do something forever". I might say, "I'll continue to drink beer", but when the beer runs out (or I pass out), I'll stop.
Unfortunately for us, RedGate's beer ran out, so they stopped giving Reflector away. I don't think we can argue that they should be required to continue giving it away forever. However, I still think they were wrong to take v6 away and try to force everyone to upgrade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zebula8
Joined: 29 Mar 2011
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
My comments in bold:
Ah, but there's a difference between "continue to do something" and "do something forever". I might say, "I'll continue to drink beer", but when the beer runs out (or I pass out), I'll stop.
Nice analogy about the beer. However, beer and software are two different beasts. Software should continue to work if well written; and well, beer should run out if well brewed.
Unfortunately for us, RedGate's beer ran out, so they stopped giving Reflector away. I don't think we can argue that they should be required to continue giving it away forever. However, I still think they were wrong to take v6 away and try to force everyone to upgrade.
My argument is that they should be giving away the v6 to the community and plod ahead with newer versions that require payment. I tend to think, and this is only a guess, that v7 is only a couple of bells and whistles on top of v6. I could be wrong but that's how most software is written. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichardD
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:45 pm Post subject: Re: |
|
|
| zebula8 wrote: |
| My argument is that they should be giving away the v6 to the community and plod ahead with newer versions that require payment. |
Then we'll have to agree to agree - that's my argument as well. 
But that doesn't imply that anyone needs to maintain v6; if it works for our requirements, we should be able to continue using it as-is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GreedyRedgate
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agree.
The self-deletion of the "free version" is way out of line.
I have lost all respect for Redgate as a result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rliberoff
Joined: 06 Apr 2011
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree with zebula8!!!
You MUST provide a free version, even if it is given 'as-is' and does not have any support or maintenance. No problem if it is version 4, 5 or 6!
No problem if it does not have Visual Studio integration. I'm quite sure the .NET community will not care about it. The community cares about the authoritarian decision to put such useful tool only to be available by paying!
That should be considered a crime!
I'm sad. I'm quite sure Lutz Roeder didn't wish to have his tool be rapped like this! 
GIVE IT BACK to the COMMUNITY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
