From: Ginny Caughey on 27 May 2010 12:53 Very cool, Mark! -- Ginny Caughey www.wasteworks.com
From: Geoff Schaller on 27 May 2010 18:32 You are so totally correct! One of the models put to Brian was just that we paid for annual patches. $150 each per year or so. I believe part of the problem here was the agreement he had with CA but I am sure there are creative ways around that. The issue for Brian is that Vulcan is all his - no royalty to CA - hence it makes commercial sense for him to concentrate on Vulcan and that is exactly what he has done. The reason he originally opted not to have a VO only subscription in the early days was because HE KNEW he would not get enough support for Vulcan. Most of us only had a passing interest in Vulcan because we wanted VO supported first. So VOPS was used to fund Vulcan (instead of the agreed 50:50 arrangement) on the grounds that Brian assumed we'd all just cross over to the Dark Side when the time came and would be subsequently happy. Well history has proven me, Ed, Oskar and others right. It isn't what the majority wanted. Geoff "richard.townsendrose" <richard.townsendrose(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:9fd3704f-8c14-4145-84a6-98c634478817(a)v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com: > Hi all > > the fact is that it is easier to �100 off 1,000 people thatn to take > �1,000 off 100 - ask any taxman. > > the fact is that Brian planned on �1,000 from 1,000 and that just > didn't happen. > > my first business plkan for tdoc was �1,000 for 1,000 companies > > the current one says take �2,000 off 100 companies EVERY year as > annual maintenance > > so i would be very happy to be one of the 1,000 users who pay brian > �100 a year > > however brian doesn't see it that way ... but it really would help if > he made sure that VO was FINISHED off - like pdf in reportpro etc, AND > took his �100 pa - but he doesn't so there we are > > richard > > richard
From: richard.townsendrose on 28 May 2010 07:06
Geoff 100% agreed .... Richard [not often ... but ...] |