Re: Reports Background engine failures

sybrandb_at_gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 06:12:55 GMT, "Preston"
> <dontwantany_at_nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Careful Daniel, you're getting dangerously close to Sybrand levels
> > of arrogance with that post.
> >
>
> Doesn't the label 'arrogant' equally apply to someone calling himself
> 'Preston' . After all it is 'Preston' who decides his customers should
> remain in the dark.

Wrong on both counts - it's not my decision & our customers aren't in the dark.

> > You know absolutely nothing about our customers, nor what's
> > important to them.
>
> What is important to your customers is a supported version of the
> database, a supported version of the O/S and a supported version of
> the hardware.

Again, wrong on every count. What's important to our customers is software that works & meets their business needs, & which is supported by *us*. You obviously think you know more about our customers requirements than they do themselves, which frankly doesn't surprise me (hence the 'Sybrand levels of arrogance' comment).

> Otherwise they will, when theire servers fall apart, because someone
> called 'Preston' advised them not to upgrade, not only pay big bucks
> to replace their servers, but they will be also be forced to upgrade
> their O/S (as their current crap isn't certified against the new
> hardware), and their software, including Oracle, etc, etc, etc,

Well done, you've managed to get that wrong too. All our clients use 'modern' hardware, recent OS & Oracle 10.2.0.2. The only 'unsupported' software they use is Reports 6i, which is of course supported by us as the supplier.  

> Maybe some customers don't understand this, as they have never been
> informed by someone called 'Preston', but then someone called
> 'Preston' 's software policy is full of 'Pennywise, pound foolish'

Actually it's full of functionality requested by the clients to enable them to run their businesses. But I'll ring them all up today if you like & tell them the next release will be delayed a couple of months because Sybrand says they don't really know what they want, & he knows better - I'm sure they'll appreciate that.

> Likely this will put him out of business someday.

Yes, that's right. The fact that we've been supplying these applications for over eleven years without ever hitting a 'show stopping' bug means it's 'likely' that we'll go out of business because of one.

> I can't say I will regret this.

So you'd be happy to see a company go out of business, leaving the employees without a job, just because you don't agree with their policy regarding one very small part of their application? You really are a nasty piece of work aren't you.

-- 
Preston.