Red Gate forums :: View topic - Redgate should turn over .Net Reflector back to open source
Return to www.red-gate.com RSS Feed Available

Search  | Usergroups |  Profile |  Messages |  Log in  Register 
Go to product documentation
.NET Reflector 7.0 Feedback
.NET Reflector 7.0 Feedback forum

Redgate should turn over .Net Reflector back to open source

Search in .NET Reflector 7.0 Feedback forum
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
rhyatt



Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:54 pm    Post subject: Redgate should turn over .Net Reflector back to open source Reply with quote

If Redgate can't support it as a free tool, they should turn it back over to the open source community who can successfully do it.

This makes everyone wonder if the point of acquiring the rights to it was to monetize the product to begin with, even if it was not the intention.

How about asking to have folks pay for support rather than to use ? This is more in line with the open source model.

Not interested in flame war, just wanting to float the balloon.
_________________
sqlbug
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sergiopereira



Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Redgate should turn over .Net Reflector back to open source Reply with quote

rhyatt wrote:
If Redgate can't support it as a free tool, they should turn it back over to the open source community who can successfully do it.


I sympathize with the idea, but I honestly doubt that the .NET community can keep something like Reflector alive for as long as Reflector has existed.

I know I'd happily pay for Reflector at $35 if I needed to but I know that's not viable for many developers I know, notably in other countries.

Right now I'm hoping MS wakes up to the importance of Reflector in .NET and realizes they have a severe gap in the SDK without Reflector. I hope they either acquire this software and include in the SDK or create something similar.

Redgate could get their investment back and the community would get their essential tool "back" as well.

In the end, my speculation is that the paid version of Reflector will not sustain the development of the tool. It will either become OSS or owned by MS... or it will disappear completely when C#5 arrives with new unsupported language features.
_________________
__________________
Sergio Pereira
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redgatesucks



Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:34 pm    Post subject: agreed.. back to open source Reply with quote

I don't think redgate can be trusted.. and it should be turned back over to the open source community.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tlhintoq



Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I know I'd happily pay for Reflector at $35 if I needed to but I know that's not viable for many developers I know, notably in other countries.

I too feel US$35 is a reasonable price for this tool. I have this really odd notion that companies should make a profit for their efforts. I want to make a profit for my efforts.

I disagree however about this being outside affordability for *developers*. I think any true developer (or even hobbyist) who bought (not pirated) Visual Studio can certainly come up with the cost of McDonalds for four, for a tool they will use.

As bad as this is going to sound, I'm okay if the $5/day outsource labor in third-world regions can't afford tools they use to reverse-engineer programs created by the original developer. Spending $35 is insignificant against the cost of armor-plating software against the onslaught of hackers.

Others have pointed out some good options such as
  • keeping v6 free per the original acquisition agreement,
  • putting v6 source code back in the hands of the open source community,
  • having a v7 Express version that is limited or carries ads,
  • and a v7 Pro version for $35.


Of course if the $35 cost is to cover continued development then I would hope and expect there to be actual development of new capabilities. I would also hope that having the v6 code out there would generate some competition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
yfisaqt



Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am shocked by the move. Yes, Red Gate needs money-every company does, but I feel this is the wrong decision. I agree with others here that this product should be released to the open source community. Red Gate should simply accept the loss as a bad investment. I'm curious to hear what Lutz thinks of all this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AvonWyss



Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing is that V6 will stop working on Mai 30, 2011, at least that's what they announced. So you cannot even continue using the old version.

@tlhintoq, if I had to pay even just 35$ for each of all the great tools I use as hobbyist (starting withj the .NET Fromework itself, ASP.NET MVC, Subversion, Mercurial, Git, VS Express versions, SQL Server express versions, Mono etc.), then I'd have to look for another hobby. Period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tlhintoq



Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

AvonWyss wrote:
The thing is that V6 will stop working on Mai 30, 2011, at least that's what they announced. So you cannot even continue using the old version.

@tlhintoq, if I had to pay even just 35$ for each of all the great tools I use as hobbyist (starting withj the .NET Fromework itself, ASP.NET MVC, Subversion, Mercurial, Git, VS Express versions, SQL Server express versions, Mono etc.), then I'd have to look for another hobby. Period.


I'm sorry to hear that. Its a rather extensive set of tools for a hobbyist I'll admit. But that is the nature of a hobby. It's not a constitutional right. I'm a hobbyist photographer. I don't expect all of my tools to be free. I had to pay (dearly) for my 1000mm supertelephoto lens, and my Canon 7D DSLR. I just have to decide what is important to my hobby. Every couple of years it means selling one camera body if I am to buy a newer one.

Hobbyist comic collectors, and hobbyist audiophiles don't expect their hobbies to be free. I lack an understanding of why people think that hobby coding should include free professional-level tools.

MS offers Express version of their tools. As stated earlier if RedGate offered an Express version of Reflector that would fit the rest of the model. A pro version of VS costs money, as should a pro version of Reflector. It seems pretty common sense to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
redgatesucks



Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The thing is that V6 will stop working on Mai 30, 2011, at least that's what they announced. So you cannot even continue using the old version.


Really.. that sucks.. Once seeing the announcement my first thought was.. well screw em.. I'll keep using V6. But I guess I'll probably look for an alternative.. even if it costs.. because by principle this is bs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AvonWyss



Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:17 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

tlhintoq wrote:
I'm a hobbyist photographer. I don't expect all of my tools to be free. I had to pay (dearly) for my 1000mm supertelephoto lens, and my Canon 7D DSLR. I just have to decide what is important to my hobby. Every couple of years it means selling one camera body if I am to buy a newer one.

Well, the thing is that Canon doesn't forcefully take away your camera just to force you buying a new one. And that's what is happening here.

That said, it's not about getting everything for free. But the community providing free tools and open source software lives from this give-and-take. And such a decision of actually revoking a free tool from the community is not the same as asking for money for new stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RichardD



Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

tlhintoq wrote:
I don't expect all of my tools to be free.


Agreed. However, I think we have a reasonable right to expect that those tools which are free will continue to work until the OS no longer supports them. I don't expect RedGate to update v6 to support Windows 12, but I certainly don't expect v6 to suddenly stop working just because RedGate want my money!

Forcing users of your free tool to pay for an upgrade they don't want? But those are the actions of an evil company, aren't they?! Evil or Very Mad

Quote:

Homer: Uh, Milhouse saw the elephant twice and rode him once, right?
Mrs. Van Houten: Yes, but we paid you $4.
Homer: Well, that was under our old price structure. Under our new price structure, your bill comes to a total of $700. Now, you've already paid me $4, so that's just $696 more that you owe me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcnamaragio



Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my opinion redgate should at least remove the time bomb from current version. They should also release source code so that it can be maintained by the community.

Otherwise it will be just a matter of time before a cracked version or patch is released.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
koo9



Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Redgate should turn over .Net Reflector back to open source Reply with quote

rhyatt wrote:
If Redgate can't support it as a free tool, they should turn it back over to the open source community who can successfully do it.

This makes everyone wonder if the point of acquiring the rights to it was to monetize the product to begin with, even if it was not the intention.

How about asking to have folks pay for support rather than to use ? This is more in line with the open source model.

Not interested in flame war, just wanting to float the balloon.


if the plan was to turn the userful free tool into profit in the first place, I think this move will anger the community so at the end it will do more harm than good/profit for red gate. it is evil. not the fact that red gate cannot support it as a free product, what's evil is taking something that is good and free away from the community.

raise the price on other popular red gate products, show some love for open source or give it back to the open source community.

cheers


Last edited by koo9 on Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gooch



Joined: 03 Jul 2010
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:17 pm    Post subject: HUH? Reply with quote

I am a long time customer, evangelist and friend of Red-Gate products, services and support. This caught me by total surprise. Well, not really. I was more disappointed when Lutz turned reflector over to Red-Gate. I felt at the time there could only be one motivation for this, not to fault Red-Gate, but they are a commercial product company. If it is true what the CEO says, then please turn it over to the community. It does not have to be CodePlex, this could be a new opportunity for Red-Gate to actually engage its user-customer base even more. Why not create the Red-Gate Open Source Community. You manage the software, releases etc., but let the Red-Gate Community develop and maintain it? Red-GatePlex.com? Let the community create extension and add-ins for Reflector that use Red-Gates tools. I see a bigger value in that then to try and sell a product for $39.00. The price is not really the issue for me and most, it is the principal of it all. I was using a tool Called Salamander ($2500.00) when Lutz release Reflector and have had it as a staple in my toolkit since. I have had nothing but praise for Red-Gate since I was introduced to them over 7 years ago…But this is not a good move…Neil, Can you hear me? Is this thing on? Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrew_



Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The move has angered this .NET developer. I've been using Lutz's tool since it's inception. That's right *lutz's* tool, not Redgate's. The only thing Redgate did was to add features I was never interested in anyhow.

Totally agree; just a matter of time until the new version is cracked, and I'll have no problem using it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yfisaqt



Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forget Red Gate. I say we fire up an open source project and start rivaling this product. Yes, it would take lots of work and effort, but I firmly believe there is enough talent and passion to keep this concept alive and free.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group