Board index » cppbuilder » Borland Comms - Part II

Borland Comms - Part II


2004-10-30 05:39:16 AM
cppbuilder42
Here's an updated posted.
www.simventions.com/gustavson/2004/10/borland-communication.html
 
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

Paul Gustavson wrote:
Quote
Here's an updated posted.

www.simventions.com/gustavson/2004/10/borland-communication.html
"I received a phone call from Borland on October 28, 2004, and, although I
can't divulge the details of the conversation or whom I spoke with, I was
very encouraged by the commitment Borland is showing to address our issues
regarding BCB!"
To be honest thats a bit disappointing....
If the community wanted another person that knew slightly more than them but
couldn't tell them, i'm sure they wouldn't have signed the letter.
Perhaps next time you speak/email etc you could mention that you're acting
as a representative of the community and as such you would appreciate it if
they would allow you to pass on any communications you receive/are involved
with.
--
Vesty.
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

Why can't you tell us who you talk to or what is going on? I think that is
pretty sad if the community "reprensentative" can't be open to the
community.
Thank you for efforts anyway.
"Paul Gustavson" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >kirjoitti viestiss?

{smallsort}

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

"Vesty" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Paul Gustavson wrote:

>Here's an updated posted.
>
>www.simventions.com/gustavson/2004/10/borland-communication.html


"I received a phone call from Borland on October 28, 2004, and, although I
can't divulge the details of the conversation or whom I spoke with, I was
very encouraged by the commitment Borland is showing to address our issues
regarding BCB!"

To be honest thats a bit disappointing....

If the community wanted another person that knew slightly more than them
but
couldn't tell them, i'm sure they wouldn't have signed the letter.

Perhaps next time you speak/email etc you could mention that you're acting
as a representative of the community and as such you would appreciate it
if
they would allow you to pass on any communications you receive/are
involved
with.
No kidding. Paul is not a Team B. member, has not signed a non-disclosure
agreement (that I know of), and is therefore under no real obligation to
keep the content of that conversation secret. Paul is no different from the
rest of us, other than the fact that his phone number is on the letterhead
(so to speak) of OUR open letter (or in the email to which the letter was
attached). What a crock.
- Dennis
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

"Mika Söderholm" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Why can't you tell us who you talk to or what is going on? I think that is
pretty sad if the community "reprensentative" can't be open to the
community.
Sounds like Paul has been sucked into Borlands PR machine.
'I have been Borlandized.'
'I cannot reveal the secrets of the mothership'
'Gaak'
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

"Vesty" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote...
Quote
If the community wanted another person that knew slightly more than them
but
couldn't tell them, i'm sure they wouldn't have signed the letter.
Hmmmm. Your perception isn't quite reality, but I do appreciate the comment.
You are presuming I'm holding back information that is relevant to you and
the rest of the community, which I have no intent in doing. Actually, if
you read the rest of the text of my post you will see (or at least deduce)
what the key items were regarding their side of the conversation. That
includes...
- An update and future release of BCB is very much a consideration
- They are also considering how to involve the community to support the
production (i.e., to validate the product)
- However, management will still ultimately make the call
- They are committed to giving us a clearly stated decision by December 15th
The one thing I should add, but neglected, is that they were very interested
in my hearing my suggestions from a community's perspective regarding what
would help facilitate BCB becoming again the desired tool in our toolboxes.
They also were interested in the some of the numbers from Mark Jacob's
survey, which I'm amost done compiling. (I just haven't had enough time of
late)
Based on your comment, which I do appreciate by the way, I have revised my
blog to better reflect the relevant elements of the discussion.
Quote

Perhaps next time you speak/email etc you could mention that you're acting
as a representative of the community and as such you would appreciate it
if
they would allow you to pass on any communications you receive/are
involved
with.
Actually my words to them were very close to this statement. I have every
intent to reflect what I can, but I, of course, I can not speak in their
behalf -- only for us. And I will continue to do so as best I can.
r/ Paul
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

Paul Gustavson wrote:
Quote
"Vesty" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote...
>If the community wanted another person that knew slightly more than them
but
>couldn't tell them, i'm sure they wouldn't have signed the letter.

Hmmmm. Your perception isn't quite reality, but I do appreciate the
comment.
You are presuming I'm holding back information that is relevant to you and
the rest of the community, which I have no intent in doing.
My perception was based entirely on what you said/how you said it. It really
came across like you were suddenly in on some big secret. As i'm sure you're
aware, the *last* thing people around here need is the idea that there *is*
information available but as usual, noones telling them.
Quote
>Perhaps next time you speak/email etc you could mention that you're
>acting
>as a representative of the community and as such you would appreciate it
if
>they would allow you to pass on any communications you receive/are
involved
>with.

Actually my words to them were very close to this statement. I have every
intent to reflect what I can, but I, of course, I can not speak in their
behalf -- only for us. And I will continue to do so as best I can.
Great!
--
Vesty.
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

"Mika Söderholm" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Why can't you tell us who you talk to or what is going on?
That's a fair question, why didn't I mention the person's name that I talked
to? And what might I be holding back?
First of all, does it really matter at this point who I talked to other than
it was a key Borland employee? Would you rather know this person's name and
just some really vague information, or would you rather know the key
elements of the discussion pertinent to our interest - BCB? Consider that
if a statement of intent is made that is attributed to a identified Borland
employee please understand that could easily get misconstrued as a corporate
decision, when the reality is that the decision has not yet been made.
I could either say I talked to "John Doe" of Borland about BCB and leave it
that, or I could be a bit more specific on what they are thinking and
considering regarding BCB, which is what I chose.
As far as information it appears I'm holding back, well what I've left out
my post has nothing to do with BCB per say, but it has to do with the
activities and structuring of the Borland team. This includes their
composition presently and what's required in regards to repositioning
manpower to make things happen. However, it simply is not in my right as an
outsider to reveal another company's internal affairs / activities to the
rest of the world -- it's irrelevant to us and bringing it up will simply
make one think otherwise. So, that's the part I would not divulge.
Borland, of course, is welcome to share what I could not including the
person whom I spoke too.
The key, to me, is the dialog regarding the future life of BCB. This
includes the fact that they have renewed desire, the are implementing a
strategy, and perhaps, as they suggest, we've helped them (and continue to
help them) on the business case that Management needs!!! At this point, I
think we should all be encouraged!
I admit though, my original post, made it seem like I was keeping key data
from you guys -- and for that I apologize. In retrospect, that original
post didn't quite reflect what I intended to say.
Quote

Thank you for efforts anyway.

I'm trying.
r/ Paul
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

"Israel Raj T" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote

Sounds like Paul has been sucked into Borlands PR machine.

'I have been Borlandized.'
'I cannot reveal the secrets of the mothership'
'Gaak'

I have to admit, that's funny.
But please see my early post above to "Mika".
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

"Vesty" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote...
Quote

My perception was based entirely on what you said/how you said it. It
really
came across like you were suddenly in on some big secret. As i'm sure
you're
aware, the *last* thing people around here need is the idea that there
*is*
information available but as usual, noones telling them.
You're right.
As they say in suburbia America, "My bad"
Quote

>>Perhaps next time you speak/email etc you could mention that you're
>>acting
>>as a representative of the community and as such you would appreciate
it
>if
>>they would allow you to pass on any communications you receive/are
>involved
>>with.
>
>Actually my words to them were very close to this statement. I have
every
>intent to reflect what I can, but I, of course, I can not speak in their
>behalf -- only for us. And I will continue to do so as best I can.

Great!
Thanks for not giving up in me -- at least not yet!
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

Paul Gustavson wrote:
Quote
The one thing I should add, but neglected, is that they were very interested
in my hearing my suggestions from a community's perspective regarding what
would help facilitate BCB becoming again the desired tool in our toolboxes.
Paul,
1) They need to fix ALL of the v5 and v6 regression bugs and some of the bugs that
even predated v5.
Do you think they understand that regression bugs and existing bugs of long duration
are major contributing factors for why v5 and v6 sales were not better? People were
willing to pay to upgrade to get LESS bugs not MORE bugs.
I do not know what their timelines are for another BCB release.
2) If the next BCB release is a distant prospect then can they get the resources for
a service pak?
3) If they can do a service pak then ought to release betas of the service pak to
allow it to be much more widely tested.
4) They ought to look at that thread I started on 2004-10-11 called "What annoys you
most in BCB v6?" and then remove all the annoyances.
groups.google.com/groups&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&threadm=416d776f%241%40newsgroups.borland.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DWhat%2520annoys%2520you%2520most%2520in%2520BCB%2520v6%253F%26num%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg
5) I would also recommend viewing the threads:
BCB v5 users: what BCB v6 bugs kept you from upgrading?
groups.google.com/groups&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&threadm=40bef354%40newsgroups.borland.com&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dborland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26start%3D300
and:
BCB v6 users: What v6 bugs fixed in v9 would compel you to upgrade?
groups.google.com/groups&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&threadm=1n3tb0pg8aiv2235i3ba62qquk7j0dk1ro%404ax.com&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dborland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26start%3D300
6) What they say on Dec 15 should be CLEAR and SUBSTANTIAL.
I do not want to have long lawyerly debates about the next message from Borland
means. If they are just going to come out some some heavily caveated lawyerese that
gives us nothing we can depend on then I'd just as soon they stay silent until they
can be more concrete by, for example, releasing something like a service pak beta or
a product alpha or something real.
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

Quote
The one thing I should add, but neglected, is that they were very interested
in my hearing my suggestions from a community's perspective regarding what
would help facilitate BCB becoming again the desired tool in our toolboxes.
How about they stop{*word*106}ing around adding fancy enterprise level (snap,
biz, click etc) features and concentrate on producing a solid and
reliable IDE.
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

"Paul Gustavson" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:418304cc$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
First of all, does it really matter at this point who I talked to other than
it was a key Borland employee? Would you rather know this person's name and
just some really vague information, or would you rather know the key
elements of the discussion pertinent to our interest - BCB? Consider that
if a statement of intent is made that is attributed to a identified Borland
employee please understand that could easily get misconstrued as a corporate
decision, when the reality is that the decision has not yet been made.
I think that, at this point, everything matters as all we have to go on are
vague ideas and nuances. If Borland wants to respond to the community,
why doesn't someone at Borland respond here? To me, this reticence is
just more of the same. How can it be possible, after all this time, that they
still can't publish their intentions?
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

Duane Hebert wrote:
Quote

I think that, at this point, everything matters as all we have to go on are
vague ideas and nuances. If Borland wants to respond to the community,
why doesn't someone at Borland respond here? To me, this reticence is
just more of the same. How can it be possible, after all this time, that they
still can't publish their intentions?

And even if they do respond on 15/12 saying they will release BCB inside
DiamondBack in a years time. How do we trust them not to change their
minds again in 6 months and drop it?
Like they have done for now with the new compiler, and with wx windows?
Personally, I'm not really ready to believe anything Borland say even if
it is in an official open letter, until a release is actually on the
shelves ready for me to buy. With the aforementioned compiler and gui
library, they've even shown that after public previews, they can chop
and change their minds.
And given the complete lack of bug fixes for CBX 1.0 over the last year,
I don't really have any confidence that even when actively supporting a
product, they don't actually support the product!
Cheers
Russell
 

Re:Borland Comms - Part II

"Duane Hebert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote ...
Quote
I think that, at this point, everything matters as all we have to go on
are
vague ideas and nuances. If Borland wants to respond to the community,
why doesn't someone at Borland respond here? To me, this reticence is
just more of the same. How can it be possible, after all this time, that
they
still can't publish their intentions?
We should know their "intentions" by Dec 15th -- or sooner. I'm not trying
to by an apologist for them, but consider that they are in listen mode
regarding the community's requirements, still compiling a feature list, and
in planning stages including resource allocation commitment & schedule. All
good signs by the way, but, from a Business 101 you don't share what you
don't yet know. Management must still make a decision, and until then, this
is where Management applies it's "filters", which unfortunately can result
in a lack of communication. Like you though, I do hope that they will able
to say something sooner rather than later. I encouraged such in my
conversation with them.