🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-04-24, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:31:34 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote:
>> 
>>>> Upward-compatibility of a kind is not all that difficult to achieve.
>>  
>>> A cynical person might think they make the versions slightly
>>> incompatible to force their clients to upgrade to the latest version.
>> 
>> +1
>
> Sorry, I have the old mentality of trying to make the software as easy
> to use and as compatible as possible. The M$ model seems to be to as
> incompatible as possible. Doing what's best for the customer seems to
> have gone bye-bye. 

I think it's not so much gone bye-bye as having never been there to begin with.
Remember too that "ease of use" is highly subjective, and is often confused
with "ease of learning".  They're two entirely different things; things that
make a piece of software easy to learn often just get in the way of experienced
users.

> Of course that isn't an entirely new thing. In the old days IBM would not
> introduce something that would have been simple because they were thinking
> of themselves and not the customer - think of the few minor changes MVS
> would have needed to make it play nicer under VM, similar to what VS1 got,
> or provide FBA support.

Yup.  And when they do bring out a change that actually makes things easier
(yes, it occasionally happens), they make a lot of noise about what heroes
they are for fixing a problem that they themselves created in the first place.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com