.... Multi or otherwise.

Quite an interesting contrast in reading CDP and the openqm-devel
mailing list.

Here on CDP I see long, convoluted explanations of how to write a BASIC
program to allow the equivalent of 'NO.NULLS' when creating a D3 index.

Also here I see long winded reprimands to paying customers for
expecting RD to read their own forums and respond to what are clearly
problems with their products.

These aren't isolated incidents but rather quick samplings of many
similar posts.

On the other hand, in the last couple of weeks on openqm-devel, I have
seen Ladybridge respond within hours on at least three occasions to
requests for features and fixes.

Are we getting real value from vendors for our money?

Tom deL wrote:

By vendors, I assume you mean those selling multi-value databases, such
as RD.

If you're just asking yourself that question now, you're about 10 years
too late - Especially if referring to Raining Data.

I dropped RD as soon after I discovered jBASE in the mid 90's.

Today, jBASE is still a good product and support seems decent, but it's
not the company it once was.

--
Kevin Powick

I wish the systems I work on were ready for a port off of D3 but for
now I have to make do =\ When we do get to the point where switching
databases looks like a real option I am looking forward to trying out
OpenQM or failing that jBASE.

Of course I dont get to pick these sorts of things

Quote: " I have seen Ladybridge respond within hours on at least three
occasions to requests for features and fixes."

Amen to that!! Keep up the good work!!

Diets

Hi Kevin,

No, I have been asking that for a long time. In the early days of
AP/PRO PICKSys had a good 'pay as you go' support scheme and support
folks who were there when you needed them. Seems that things got
reversed soon after that and now people are expected to pay more for
less.

That was around the time that I started moving away from PICK as a
means of making a living. The PICK B-Tree system was broken back then
too (can something that had never functioned properly be 'broken'?).

Having installed 'upgrades' for some old clients over the years, the
only substantial changes I have seen have been in licensing fees and
port counting schemes. Shame.

Also over the years I have looked over my shoulder often, wishing that
I could find a way to go back. openQM is making that look like a real
possibility.
-Tom

Hi Tedd,

And I am looking at moving a couple of sprawling acocunts to openQM,
will let you know how things go.

Don't know who does but IMHO a strong case can be made.
-Tom

Hi Diets,

And I will second that thought.

Originally I approached openQM with some trepidation but have seen
nothing but positive things going on there.
-Tom

Can you post exactly how that's done?

Thanks,
Jeff

"Tom deL" wrote:
Tom just rang the "we don't want to hear it anymore bell". OK, here
is my last note on the topic of RD Support.

I really don't care how you guys relate to RD. I'd post similar
comments for any company if I saw lack of communication between a
vendor and their end-users. I'm just explaining the process, I don't
approve of it. The difference is akin to explaining how war is fought
versus supporting war as being a good thing. If the process is wrong,
petition through the right channels to fix it.

Tom, let's consider your statements:
"paying customers" - if customers are paying and on a current
release with a current support contract then why do they insist on
posting to a public forum rather than sending an e-mail? Something
tells me these people have terminated their contracts but now want
support, or they don't have VARs that will take care of business for
them. Very few companies will provide official support to users who
are out of contract. Again, I don't advocate this and I still do
whatever I can for people running software I wrote 15 years ago - I
personally believe a company should welcome bug reports from anyone
regardless of contract status. But some people waste time reporting
bugs when they don't understand the software. You don't know where
any given call will lead, and "someone" needs to pay the salary of the
people who are answering the calls. It's a rough situation and our
economy requires constant income to support these expenses. The
Value-Add Reseller gets a commission for being the person that doesn't
waste the time of the product developer. If your VAR doesn't provide
this value-add or you have no VAR, then you need to fix that situation
rather than blaming the product developer.
"read their own forums" - The forums are for exchanges of
information. If a situation requires investigation (time=money) then
it should be taken through an official Support call where they can log
the event and ensure that they are working one-on-one with legitimate
parties. I don't hear anyone ragging about IBM but their policy is
exactly the same for U2 products - the forums are for community
discussion (where some IBM personnel participate in their own free
time) and paying customers are free to use proper channels.

One thing I would change about the policies is that someone should
monitor forums and occasionally send a cordial note to people, like
"your issue may require more indepth analysis so I'd encourage you to
report it through official Support channels". When I was at PS/RD I
used to do this all the time, and I think it worked well for everyone,
but that was my own initiative even though people considered it good
corporate customer service. For a brief period Gil Figueroa
authorized Mark Brown and me to officially monitor these forums and
interact like this - hell, we _wanted_ to do it, authorization was
bonus! RD has a different notion these days about such things, more
like "if they don't know how it works, tough". Again, if you don't
like the way it works, petition for change or get a new vendor.

OpenQM is free (liberty&beer) software, but only for developers, not
for end users - you aren't paying anything for it so the comparison
isn't valid. Paying end-users (for very reasonable licensing fees)
may still need to contact LadyBridge directly for specific Support
issues. You can get answers in the OpenQM forum but those answers
apply to the OpenQM package and may not apply to the closed-source QM
binary product. I won't minimize their dedication to the product.
While I have many issues with their interpretation of licensing which
cause me to not even load the software, I do support their open source
approach and encourage people to check into it.

Nuf outta me.
T

Goo'day,

On 14 Oct 2005 09:41:19 -0700, "Tom deL" <ted (AT) blackflute (DOT) com> wrote:

I am...... but then again, I'm so firmly committed to QM (of the paid
variety) with an installed customer base that after over 2 years of
QMing - July 2003 - I have absolutely NO intention of "going back",
and NO need.

Tom says "three occasions". My experience says "every" occasion.
Sometimes Martin needs a prod to *prove* a need for an addition/change
but, by tomorrow it's there..... Another benefit of being half a
world away from the UK.....<grin>

I often cast an eye over the previous QM release notes and get quite
embarrassed - too many of the enhancements seem to start from me,
here....

I'm a bit apprehensive about the "open" OpenQM. I think there's a
lot more benefit in staying with the factory, paying the pittance they
demand for users - and asking *directly* for advice and such. I've
never been in a position such as this before - I get to converse
directly with the author.... I'm not lost in the factory / distributor
/ var melee that seems to be the norm in MV here in Oz.

There seems to be too much "conceptualising" going on in OpenQM -
there seems to be very little there that is being "put to use" - most
of the practicioners seem to be somebody else's employee with a
grand/geek idea, and little need to get it to market ......and it
still has to be "free"...... But at least it seems to have settled
down from the early days of everybody running around like chooks with
their heads chopped off.....

So, what I guess I'm saying is "OK, commercially, go for the
commercial product"

QM has a "PE" edition, and a "developers" edition, just like UV/UD,
and for all I know (or care) RD. Suck it and see.... I'm sure
you'll find it a stable AND BETTER product..... ALL things
considered....

AND CONVERSION IS NOT A PROBLEM...Or at least it wasn't for us -
played with the product for a while, got the factory on-side - I think
- and went for it.... Program conversion, easy; PROC riddance, a bit
more difficult, but the experience is there now; data conversion,
easy. What else is there? User Exits? Never used other than the
"supplied" ...

My customers think it's great ..... QM and AccuTerm - can't be
beaten..... everything they need... and with the capability of
incorporating tomorrow's needs as well, for a one-time charge less
than the cost of a year's maintenance with t'others....

Which reminds me..... Come on, Doug, where's QMCoyote? CoyoteQM???

Regards,

Bruce Nichol
Talon Computer Services
ALBURY NSW Australia

http://www.taloncs.com.au

If it ain't broke, fix it until it is....