ender@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Ender) (05/03/91)
In article <19171@uudell.dell.com> sblair@upurbmw.dell.com (Steve Blair) writes: >Ed Carp sez: > >|> Yes, but FooBar Co. (as you yourself have stated) just doesn't have any interest There's NO WAY that you're going to >|> get all vendors to distribute fixes, let alone distribute them FOR FREE. > >While I agree with several posters, SOME companies DO CARE, and >do insure that fixes get distributed. Size of the company, >&/or any arguments about the customer bas is ILLOGICAL. If the ILLLOGICAL, hmm? It's not exactly illogical, Ed gave a basis for his belief that many companies would rather not bother with fixing bugs. You, in return, use the 'poisoning the well' argument -- 'any argument my opponent makes is not logically based, so I should win the debate.' >then that's his choice. But the vendors who DO DISTRIBUTE SECURITY >fixes will be remembered, in things such as customer loyalty!! > >The small 1 or even 2 time cost of the fix, regardless of media >to achieve *satisfaction* of being "supported right" will always >far outweigh the minor cost associated with distribution. The >possibilities of legal action in lawyer costs substantiate this!! > >That will be a decisive factor, as wel become more and more 'lectronic !!!!! > Maybe. I've remembered getting a bugfix version of the program (albeit under warranty). Always gave me a good feeling about the software. But the argument Ed used still holds: what if vendors decide the User Satisfaction (TM) isn't going to happen or isn't worth the effort? Even as wel [sic] become more 'lectronic [sic] (!!!!!)? -- Matt