Licenses, expirations, etc

[Garance A Drosehn]

[dumb timestamps provided because I'm quoting several messages,
 so I thought there should be some indication of which one I'm
 referring to.  Looks kinda silly though]

at Thu, 2 Feb 95 14:52:43 -0800 Will Shipley wrote:
> I'm sorry for any disruption in service my beta software expiring
> caused.  As I've pointed out to others, nobody ever tells me they
> are relying on OmniWeb until I break something in it.

The *last* time the expiration stuff went off, it was pointed out
that the implementation of that was extremely undesirable and
unpleasant.  You made a mistake then (timewise), and yet continued
on with the optimistic assumption that no mistakes will ever be
made again.  (the same could be said for me, when I'm programming,
but I don't pull the rug out from under people without giving them
any warning or any backup option) (and I mean *backup* option, not
"let's rush ahead" option).  I don't think I commented on this
mailing list at the time, but I certainly pointed out in usenet
that WWW clients are actually *used* by people, in their real-work
situations, and shouldn't be treated quite the same way as some
game that you can just expire without any ill effects on the user.

at Thu, 2 Feb 95 14:55:23 -0800 William Shipley wrote:
> Actually, there's not much need to speculate on how timebombing
> should work, since there are no, no, NO timebombs in 0.9.1.

at Thu, 2 Feb 95 08:12:32 -0800 William Shipley wrote:
> Turns out most everyone wants more licenses.  Big surprise, guess
> I should have suspected that.  So, here's a 20 license that will
> see you through until March:
>
> sllmkstu9tr
>
> I understand that many people won't have been able to buy OmniWeb
> by then, but I figure by then it'll probably be Lighthouse's problem.
> Maybe not.

This is a direct contradiction to the claim quoted above it.  Users
will once again know the joy of having this application expire on
them, and "oh, btw, it's someone else's problem".  I did get the
message saying lighthouse will handle the temporary licenses, so
I realize the problem with the above has already been addressed,
but I'm pointing out that this attitude of "oh, let's go expire
everyone's web client once again" is not very user friendly.

at Thu, 2 Feb 95 12:43:53 -0800 he wrote:
> Thanks for all the bug reports, and for your patience.  I think
> we'll have something pretty decent in a couple days, and really
> solid in a couple weeks.

Why couldn't you have just redone the check in the previous version
and released that, instead of *forcing* everyone to "upgrade" into
this beta-test cycle?  Pick a date like July 1st, instead of being
cute and trying to get it to expire the exact date you expected
the replacement to be ready.  I don't mean any hostility by saying
that (even if I am emphasizing my point), I imagine this is just
the same endless optimism that I alluded to earlier.  I'm sure you
really thought that making the new version available would be
AGoodThing(tm), but that was based on the assumption that it was
bugless code (or at least, no significant bugs compared to the
previous version).  Would it really be all that horrific for anyone,
financially, if the old version expired a few months after the new
(commercial) one was actually available?

Making the new version available for anyone who might be interested
is a good thing.  Forcing everyone to use a version which (obviously)
still has a few rough edges (along with many improvements) is not so
wonderful.

I appreciate your prompt reaction to the mixup (*), but that reaction
doesn't help anyone who's going to have to stop what they are doing
every once-in-awhile to pick up the next beta version in this cycle.
Some people actually depend on their WWW clients, it's not some damn
fool game.  Maybe they don't want to run off to some ftp site every
few hours, just because you're faced with an unexpected error.

(* - NOTE: I am not complaining about the mistake itself.  Mistakes
     happen.  Fine.  I am complaining about the practical consequences
     to users which are caused by the way this is being handled).

Disclaimer: perhaps I'm more frustrated than most on this.  I have
one NeXTstation where I run OmniWeb a lot, and which has usually
had the most current version on it.  I have two others that had old
versions on them, because OmniWeb isn't used as much on those.
They were still running a much older version, one done before the
fascination with expiration dates had set in.  On Feb 1st, I noticed
this, and updated both those machines to the latest version.  I
tossed out the old version, thinking "why would I need this?".  And
then, the very next day, the damn thing expires!!  This is particularly
exasperating because other people use the machines in question. Thus,
from their viewpoint, I dropped in last night and broke a working
application.

Yes, I know that "all I have to do" is run around and update these
machines, maybe three or four times today, but it's mighty irritating
just the same.

And if you ever do get this to be a commercial product, I do intend
to buy a license for it.  I'm not upset with the product itself, but
these expiration ideas have been infuriating.  I like the product,
if I could just buy it or something so I don't have to keep futzing
around with these stupid expiration ideas.

---
Garance Alistair Drosehn     =     gad at eclipse.its.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer            (handles NeXT-type mail)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;           Troy NY    USA