Comments
Sort by recent activity
Yep. Exactly. Redgate likes to argue that Lutz Roeder was the one who put in the delete/forced upgrade timebomb. The difference was, Lutz always offered a free version to upgrade to. / comments
Yep. Exactly. Redgate likes to argue that Lutz Roeder was the one who put in the delete/forced upgrade timebomb. The difference was, Lutz always offered a free version to upgrade to.
Instead, not only will I NOT buy version 7 of reflector, I will not buy ANY Red-Gate software, EVER. ( And I HAD seriously considered angling my bosses to purchase your SQL-PROMPT tool for me. )
Yep. Never underestimate the willingness for us developers to cut off our noses to spite our faces...
Your other products are the best/only tools available in their niche? Don't care. I refuse to buy them now. I'd rather work out of notepad than support RedGate.
. / comments
Instead, not only will I NOT buy version 7 of reflector, I will not buy ANY Red-Gate software, EVER. ( And I HAD seriously considered angling my bosses to purchase your SQL-PROMPT tool for me. )...
Trevorwin> You're more likely to get a reply if you start a new topic, rather than hijacking an existing post, especially one that hasn't been updated since April / comments
Trevorwin> You're more likely to get a reply if you start a new topic, rather than hijacking an existing post, especially one that hasn't been updated since April
sirflimflam wrote:
As far as updating the software goes, Redgate is doing the same work Lutz did when he originally made the software.
Of course, Lutz (1) did it for free, (2) did it by himself, without the need for a team of developers, and (3) did it in his spare time.
Don't get me wrong, Lutz put a lot of his time and effort into maintaining Reflector. But it's hard to swallow the whole "we can't afford to keep it free" when it was free for years, and maintained by one person in his spare time.
To me, this isn't about "we can't", this is about "we want".
. / comments
sirflimflam wrote:
As far as updating the software goes, Redgate is doing the same work Lutz did when he originally made the software.
Of course, Lutz (1) did it for free, (2) did it by himsel...
Wow, the threads just keep coming... how long is it going to take RedGate to realize just how many people they've angered, and just how badly they've damaged their reputation as a company.
I'm right there with everyone else, I want nothing to do with any of RedGate's products... I don't trust them, and I won't support a company that goes back on its word (Don't try to split hairs with me over whether you "promised". You gave your word).
As so many have said, it's not whether about whether you deserve to be compensated for your work or can maintain a free model... it's about:
1. Your decision to take over a free tool and and charge for it, despite assurances that you would do no such thing,
2. Your decision to force users to upgrade to a paid version, instead of letting them continue to use the free tool they currently have, and
3. The value you've added to the tool vs. the money you're now charging.
A quote I haven't seen posted yet, from James Moore:
We know we have a responsibility to the development community not to ruin a tool that is so widely used and so valuable to developers in their day-to-day jobs.
You can argue till you're blue in the face that you're justified to kill all existing free versions and force people to pay for an upgrade. You can give me 1,000 reasons why you think it's okay to go back on your word. You're not going to change my opinion of you, or convince me I should do business with you.
You think buying Reflector and keeping it free lost you money? Going back on your word and p*ssing off the community is going to lose you a lot more.
. / comments
Wow, the threads just keep coming... how long is it going to take RedGate to realize just how many people they've angered, and just how badly they've damaged their reputation as a company.
I'm righ...
I agree, and I also have a very sour taste in my mouth about Red Gate. To me, Red Gate will always be the company that took a quality tool that was free to the community and tried to charge money for it (with no significant improvement in features, I might add).
Without revenue coming in, we cannot dedicate a team of developers...
Really? You have an entire team of developers devoted to the miniscule amount of functionality you've added to the 'free' version? You need to hire more productive developers.
And if you couldn't maintain the product as a free tool, you should've left it alone. Here's an alternative for you: Release the source and give it back to the community. Then you don't have to worry about paying developers to maintain it, and the community loses their negative associations with Red Gate.
Bart Read> Great approach to all the hostility your company has created: be a smart-ErlandSommarskog to the people who are upset. You seriously just doubled the negative feelings I have toward Red Gate.
. / comments
I agree, and I also have a very sour taste in my mouth about Red Gate. To me, Red Gate will always be the company that took a quality tool that was free to the community and tried to charge money ...