User profile for JDelekto

jovball wrote: To RedGate management: Promises made and not kept are bad for business. It makes people question the integrity of the company. I work as an application architect for a government agency. Some of our developers have inquired about purchasing RedGate tools. That will definitely not be happening now. To anyone else who thinks that promises should mean something: Vote with your wallets, by all appearances, that is the only language that RedGate understands. Was the word 'promise' ever used in any of their communication or was it all implied by a community who made such an assumption because they said they would continue to provide a 'free' version of Reflector? I've already voted with my wallet and ordered their .NET Bundle. Reflector Pro was included, but their ANTS Profiling tools were my main target and have really helped me find some real hot-spots within hours of owning the product. I would rather shell out the $35 to keep Reflector alive than to see it no longer developed and kept up with language changes only to fall by the wayside. BTW, application architects are not the individuals that have the need to acquire such tools. It is usually the lowly maintenance coders who need all of the tools they can get to find all of the flaws in the original architecture. Cheers! / comments

jovball wrote: To RedGate management: Promises made and not kept are bad for business. It makes people question the integrity of the company. I work as an application architect for a government ...

0 votes

sirflimflam wrote: JDelekto wrote: For many corporations, the 'free' model doesn't always work --and don't quote Microsoft and its free development tools, because, if you read the agreement for those Express Editions, you cannot use your results for commercial purposes. I'm not sure where you got your info regarding this, JDelekto, but you're flat out wrong. There is nothing in the terms for the express editions that says you can't use them for commercial purposes. In fact, Microsoft encourages this and has done so since the express editions were first released several years ago. I stand corrected! You are absolutely right in that the Visual Studio Express Editions since 2008 allow a developer to create commercial applications. I typically scan over the license agreements and they seem to have particular limitations which would have made me think otherwise; however, even the Microsoft FAQ clarifies this. Here is the relavent link: http://www.microsoft.com/express/Suppor ... t-faq.aspx Thank you for the correction. / comments

sirflimflam wrote: JDelekto wrote: For many corporations, the 'free' model doesn't always work --and don't quote Microsoft and its free development tools, because, if you read the agreement f...

0 votes

codputer wrote: I believe Lutz provided this tool for free to the community, and reached an agreement with Lutz to continue development of the product in exchange for the exposure to the community for all of Red Gate's tools. Sounds like the honeymoon euphoria has worn off, and now that RedGate is into the marriage, its a lot more work than the dating. I wondering however if Red Gate attempt at fee revenue will be shared back to the original author of the software? Or did you get the software on one premise, and now are attempting to switch to a more profitable arrangement while cutting out the person that had the orginal idea? Redgate also states that it cannot continue to make the free model work, yet there are many companies that are able to! MS beign one fo them with their flagship product of Visual Studio... To be frank, I'm calling BS. Some exec wants his/her bonus to be better, and his/her University education and greed are kicking in to find more revenue... Interesting to see if the community will accept the argument - or put up a voice that makes RedGate understand what is fair. My bet is that this is a very bad move for Red Gate, and the ill feelings and bad press this will recieve will take away any good will that was recieved when the product was taken over. Of course, the exec will not think that the lost of good will have a negatie effect on their salary. They will just shrug their shoulders and say, "I was trying to do it for the good of the company!". Better put the the duck, weave and spin control on high... Greets, Even Simon noted in his YouTube presentation that one of the ideas of acquiring Reflector was to try and expose developers to some of their other offerings (which, to be honest, I had been waffling on for quite some time and decided to purchase). For many corporations, the 'free' model doesn't always work --and don't quote Microsoft and its free development tools, because, if you read the agreement for those Express Editions, you cannot use your results for commercial purposes. Times are tight right now, people are slashing budgets and to be honest, working as a developer I have to buy some of my own tools to make my job easier. I look for some of the best deals when I can because software is not inexpensive. For those who provide those tools, I have no qualms in parting with my coin to make my life easier. If Red Gate only has one or two developers maintaining Reflector and the product isn't bringing in any income (i.e. given away for free) what do you think the company will do? If a project costs a company to maintain in the hopes that it might generate some revenue from other interests and it doesn't, then it needs to refactor. Perhaps the company is now looking at the Reflector team to actually bring some revenue into the company as it should. Cheers. / comments

codputer wrote: I believe Lutz provided this tool for free to the community, and reached an agreement with Lutz to continue development of the product in exchange for the exposure to the communi...

0 votes

AvonWyss wrote: The worried voices in the comments from the original article regarding the takeover of Reflector unfortunately seem to be right in the end. Much blah-blah to get the product, and (I guess) after the initial agreement with Lutz has ended, put a price tag on it. Another great tool taken away from the community... that having people work on it does cost money is certainly true, but isn't that true for all the open-source and other free tools out there? I am certain that RedGate also uses tools internally which are free, provided by the community. My guess would be that Subversion is one of them. Do they really think that the people working on Subversion don't cost someone else money? http://www.simple-talk.com/opinion/opinion-pieces/the-future-of-reflector-/ In that article it was promised to the community that it would remain free. Quotes from it (emphasis mine): Under an agreement announced on Wednesday 20th August , Red Gate will be responsible for the future development of .NET Reflector, the popular tool authored by Lutz Roeder. Red Gate will continue to offer the tool for free to the community. James Moore, General manager of .NET Developer Tools at Red Gate: I think we can provide a level of resources that will move the tool forward in a big way. The first thing we are doing is continuing to offer the software to the community for free downloading. The second thing is giving our product management and usability teams the task of going out into the community to get suggestions on how we can make this amazing tool even better. We accept the fact that there will be scepticism, but we can point to a good track record of support for the community. People were wary a couple of years ago when we purchased the SQL Server Central community site, but over time we have won over many of our critics by investing heavily in the site and boosting its readership, while allowing it to maintain editorial independence. Iâ€™m hoping I will be able to sit here in a few years time and claim the same level of success with Reflector. ... I understand that people will be sceptical of our motives and are concerned about the future of a great tool. I hope that we can win over those who are sceptical, through our actions not words, that we can be as good custodians of Reflector as we have been of SQLServerCentral.com. Didn't something similar happen with SQL Prompt? This tool used to be a free offering before RedGate bought it... agreed, much work was put into it, but the price tag is high, making it more or less unaccessible for users working in a non-corporate environment. And I would be willing to bet that Reflector will become more and more expensive over time. Everyone is quoting things about "promises"; however, I have not yet seen one irate post which quotes anything from Red Gate that could be either a true "promise" or even "commitment" to the developer community that says they would give out their work product for Reflector users indefintely for no fee whatsoever. If I am mistaken, I would like to be corrected. Cheers. / comments

AvonWyss wrote: The worried voices in the comments from the original article regarding the takeover of Reflector unfortunately seem to be right in the end. Much blah-blah to get the product, and...

0 votes

rdhatch wrote: In separate acquisitions - RedGate now owns both Reflector and Smart Assembly obfuscator. One Question: How is developing both Reflector and Smart Assembly not a conflict of interest? Thank you - Ryan D. Hatch Greets, Having both a tool which 'decompiles' as well as a tool which obfuscates is not really a conflict of interest. If they added the ability to 'de-obfuscate' code into Reflector which had knowledge of their obfuscation would be more of a feature than it would be a threat; I say so because it would not require people using other obfuscators to have to drag and drop obfuscated stack traces into tools to see exactly where a problem exists. (If they even get that input.) Obfuscation is just that, it makes an assembly difficult to understand. Owning a tool which can decompile is usually thwarted by some obfuscation attempts --to the point it may cause them to crash. If you ask me, it sounds like a good marriage of products --a way to obfuscate code and a way to debug through the obfuscation. Of course, one would have to have: a) the PDB files; and b) a version of Reflector that could de-obfuscate. Cheers. / comments

rdhatch wrote: In separate acquisitions - RedGate now owns both Reflector and Smart Assembly obfuscator. One Question: How is developing both Reflector and Smart Assembly not a conflict of inter...

0 votes

sirflimflam wrote: Are you really that out to comment against anyone who is upset with this move? I respect your right to have the opinions you do, but honestly comments like these are worthless and serve nothing more than to increase tension between folks here. You are right in some respect. I am trying to at least balance out some of the 'negative' postings on this forum. People who have invested in Red Gates products and are currently happy with them usually won't say too much --those however, who have one negative experience will be the first to wail and moan.. However, I will refrain further from such inane comments. As for increasing tensions, I think the entire thread of negativity that followed from Red Gate's announcement caused more tension than my mere flippant comment which was entirely germane in its response. / comments

sirflimflam wrote: Are you really that out to comment against anyone who is upset with this move? I respect your right to have the opinions you do, but honestly comments like these are worthless...

0 votes

sman wrote: ...But when you've been something away for free and then suddenly want to charge for it that always makes people mad... You should see what it's like to have children! / comments

sman wrote: ...But when you've been something away for free and then suddenly want to charge for it that always makes people mad... You should see what it's like to have children!

0 votes

inneedofspeed wrote: In a lot of companies I have worked in, I would be looking at a process like this: Me to fill out the purchase order: 30min Me to ask chase Boss to approve order: say 3 times at 5 min each Boss to approve the order: 20min (he will ask questions that will take time) Me: maybe to investigate other options before boss will order: 30min Accounts to process the order and buy using company credit card: 1hr (as they have to learn how to use the red-gate website etc) Me and Accounts to confirm and recorded that the order has been delivered. Someone to update inventory of software licences On-going costs of tracking witch licence is installed on each developers PC Then there is all small addition costs of book keeping and auditing as there will be one more line in the companiesâ€™ books. So will I just choose not to use Reflector as the pain of the process of buying it is more than it is worth on any given occasion? (Can I meag the next dead line quicker by not investing the time in buying Reflector, time saved after the next deadline is of no value until the next deadline has been met!) As a developer, I usually purchase my *own* tools so I can have them in my toolbelt --only because I know I may not get the funding or permission to buy them. I'm sure a corporation that is making so much money could not be sponging off of a 'free' product in the first place and is probably already so slowly bogged down in red-tape that it couldn't affort the wait. / comments

inneedofspeed wrote: In a lot of companies I have worked in, I would be looking at a process like this: Me to fill out the purchase order: 30min Me to ask chase Boss to approve order: say 3 ti...

0 votes

AvonWyss wrote: tlhintoq wrote: I'm a hobbyist photographer. I don't expect all of my tools to be free. I had to pay (dearly) for my 1000mm supertelephoto lens, and my Canon 7D DSLR. I just have to decide what is important to my hobby. Every couple of years it means selling one camera body if I am to buy a newer one. Well, the thing is that Canon doesn't forcefully take away your camera just to force you buying a new one. And that's what is happening here. That said, it's not about getting everything for free. But the community providing free tools and open source software lives from this give-and-take. And such a decision of actually revoking a free tool from the community is not the same as asking for money for new stuff. AvonWyss, a Photographer's main 'tool' is their camera --a Developer's main 'tool' is their Development Studio. How is Reflector the main tool for a developer's trade? Clue me in! / comments

AvonWyss wrote: tlhintoq wrote: I'm a hobbyist photographer. I don't expect all of my tools to be free. I had to pay (dearly) for my 1000mm supertelephoto lens, and my Canon 7D DSLR. I jus...

0 votes

AvonWyss wrote: JDelekto wrote: AvonWyss, a Photographer's main 'tool' is their camera --a Developer's main 'tool' is their Development Studio. How is Reflector the main tool for a developer's trade? Clue me in! You're completely missing the point. Nobody was talking of the "main tool" for anything. In fact, the photography example was brought up by tlhintoq in the context of a hobby and therefore I replied to it. The point is that users of Reflector V6, which actually did obtain a license to use it (whether it was free or not is unimportant - I had to agree to certain conditions in order to use Reflector), are being prevented to use their properly licensed software starting on May 30, 2011. No, I was addressing the point of your response to the 'Photographer', I think it was right in line. You were comparing apples to oranges. Second of all, this entire thread about "open source" is rediculous, since Reflector was a free application at the time it was handed over to RedGate, not open source. / comments

AvonWyss wrote: JDelekto wrote: AvonWyss, a Photographer's main 'tool' is their camera --a Developer's main 'tool' is their Development Studio. How is Reflector the main tool for a developer...

0 votes

How can we help you today?

JDelekto

Comments