Stephen, you have understood well the points that I was trying to make.

Daly

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

Let's look at what Kinook did: They announced they were ceasing further development
of Ultra Recall, then they retracted that announcement without any explanation. If,
in fact, further development was not going to happen, don't potential new customers
have a right to know that? When one customer made a point of telling others about this on
their forum, he was banned from the forum.

I agree with Daly that it is perfectly
reasonable to question the ethics of people who behave this way.

While I doubt that
Kinook would go to the trouble of issuing version 4.0 just to prove Jan wrong, Jan's
reaction could very well have demonstrated to them that to keep UR viable, they had to
keep developing it, and I think that was Daly's point.

Regarding Tom Davis at Zoot,
another big thing he has going for him is the advocacy of a credible journalist, James
Fallows, no small thing. It is frustrating that Tom doesn't include any information
about what has been changed in his minor updates to Zoot, but any time I've written to
him directly with a technical question, I have gotten a swift response. And he has
never, to my knowledge, censored anyone or tried to. This is why I generally trust Tom
and am willing to have patience with the glacial-seeming pace of
development.

Steve Z.

What nonexistent statement.

There was a statement Jan responded to.

He didn't make it up.

In the best fashion of chickens everywhere, Kinook removed the evidence.

It never bothered to apologize to Jan or call him in from exile in cyber Siberia.

These guys at Kinook acted with as much class as Haavard, Opera's forum nazi who single handedly has done more to undermine both Opera's reputation and Norway's reputation as a land of democratic and fair folk than anyone else.

Consumers ought not to tolerate this kind of behaviour.

Daly

quant wrote:

Stephen Zeoli wrote:
> ... If,
>in fact, further development was not going to
happen, don't potential new customers
>have a right to know that?

we have the
saying "IF the dog didn't sh.t, he would be dead" ...

> When one customer made a point
of telling others about this on
>their forum, he was banned from the forum.

The user
was consistently bringing up NON EXISTENT statement. Do you see the
difference?

>Jan's
>reaction could very well have demonstrated to them that to
keep UR viable, they had to
>keep developing it, ....

Sure, and you believe that?
Jan's reaction demonstrated that he didn't understand that Kinook refuses to talk
about this issue (which was not fair from Kinook, but there you have it) as they haven't
answered several such questions in the original thread. Others got the clue ...

quant wrote:

Stephen Zeoli wrote:
> ... If,
>in fact, further development was not going to
happen, don't potential new customers
>have a right to know that?

we have the
saying "IF the dog didn't sh.t, he would be dead" ...

Well, in this case it sounds as if UR shit.

> When one customer made a point
of telling others about this on
>their forum, he was banned from the forum.
The user
was consistently bringing up NON EXISTENT statement. Do you see the
difference?

Just because Kinook removed the statement, doesn't mean it did not exist. I read it myself when it was first posted. If the statement was still posted, Jan would not have felt the need to bring it up... DO YOU see the difference?

>Jan's
>reaction could very well have demonstrated to them that to
keep UR viable, they had to
>keep developing it, ....
Sure, and you believe that?
Jan's reaction demonstrated that he didn't understand that Kinook refuses to talk
about this issue (which was not fair from Kinook, but there you have it) as they haven't
answered several such questions in the original thread. Others got the clue ...

Well, Kinook felt strongly enough about what Jan was saying that it banned him from the forum. He obviously had some impact on them. The fact that they posted a statement saying development was stopped and then continued to develop the program suggests something caused them to change their position. Maybe it was just a humanitarian impulse.

Steve Z.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

>we have the
>saying "IF the dog didn't sh.t, he would be dead" ...

Well, in this
case it sounds as if UR shit.

My apologies... I didn't mean for that to sound so harsh. I was trying to make a joke out of the clever saying from Quant, but on rereading it I realize it is just stupid (what I said, not what you said, Quant).

Steve Z.

Lookit, everyone. This thread was begun by a poster who wanted to know if UR's v4 was worth the upgrade price. Several people offered their opinions. So did I.

As far as my dealings with Kinook:

1. On their forum they announced a clearly stated, brief, announcement that they were no longer going to develop Ultra Recall but would continue to support it for all bug fixes & compatibility issues. To me, this was extra disappointing because their road map had been updated just days before this announcement. I expressed my surprise & disappointment with their announcement. They didn't respond directly. They did so indirectly.

2. They changed their announcement & softened it to say that there might be -- possibly -- maybe -- under certain circumstances -- further development. So I asked about their intention, circumstances, etc & never got an answer. Given the ambiguity of the 2nd statement, especially in contrast to the 1st statement, I felt then & feel now that I had a right to ask the question. And in fact, I asked it a few times, always courteous & respectful if memory serves. (This was a while back & not that important to me in the scheme of my life. Someone will have to prove otherwise w my actual words & -- as I said -- I will then apologize).

3, To me, a forum is a place to exchange information, to answer questions, make suggestions, create a community, be helpful etc. To me there was no difference between someone asking for help and getting a 'how to' response than telling a newcomer that their suggested improvement for URp would most likely not be implemented because further development had ceased. I was still using URp @ the time. This was legitimate information & -- again to the best of my recollection -- my comments always included the fact that URp was a good, stable program that got the job done.

So for this I was 'excommunicated' w/o warning. That told me something about the people I was dealing with. It had nothing to say about the program, itself. Arrogance is never becoming. So many of the brilliant developers I've dealt w & supported over the years were interesting people, happy that others had found use for their inventions & paying for it besides. It allowed them to continue their missions. IMO, Kinook forgot the 2nd part of that equation. It felt as if they only barely tolerated us users, even those of us who were excited by and enthusiastic about their creation.

The bottom line for me was not that I didn't approve of their communication style, nor that I was 'excommunicated'. It was that I felt they were not being honest with their community of users about further development. I still don't & creating a v4 out of a bunch of tweaks & charging for it only codifies my feelings further. Maybe I'll change my mind if they come out with a legitimate v5. I hope that happens.

In the meantime, I continue to say that URp is a fine, stable program that does a lot of things well. And for those of you who still use it, good for you. I just don't like giving my money to folks who don't appreciate it & whom I don't perceive as being forthright.

If any of you want to continue this thread, I ask that you take my name out of it as it really is missing the point.

--
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield CT USA

Daly de Gagne wrote:

What nonexistent statement.

There was a statement Jan responded to.

He didn't
make it up.

Did I say he made it up? I wrote "nonexistent", you said yourself "there WAS ...".
English is not my first language, but dictionary tells me

"existent" - adjective formal, existing NOW:

The statement was deleted, it ceased to exist, meaing it didn't exist AT THE TIME that he kept bringing it up, i.e. was NONEXISTENT. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

Just because Kinook removed the statement, doesn't mean it did not
exist.

I'm not saying it never existed. I wrote it was nonexistent (at the time the enquiries were made). I thought there was a difference in meaning, maybe there isn't. If there isn't, please accept my deepest apologies.

I read it myself when it was first posted. If the statement was still posted, Jan
would not have felt the need to bring it up... DO YOU see the difference?

another IF IF IF ...

Jan Rifkinson wrote:

... circumstances, etc & never got an answer. Given the ambiguity of the 2nd statement,
especially in contrast to the 1st statement, I felt then & feel now that I had a right to
ask the question. And in fact, I asked it a few times, always courteous & respectful if
memory serves.

If you didn't get the answer first, second, third time ... what did you expect when you asked it forth, fifth time? What was your motive for asking it again, knowing that it was not answered several times and it's probably not going to be answered if you ask it again?

quant wrote:

If you didn't get the
answer first, second, third time ... what did you expect when you asked it forth, fifth
time? What was your motive for asking it again, knowing that it was not answered
several times and it's probably not going to be answered if you ask it again?

Only because you've asked me a direct question am I even responding to your post. The answer -- I repeat -- is that this thread is not about me or how Kinook dealt with me. That's just window dressing.

A poster on this forum asked whether URp v4 was worth the price. I said I didn't think so & I gave my reasons why. End of story.

Jan Rifkinson wrote:

Only because you've asked me a direct question am I
even responding to your post. The answer -- I repeat -- is that this thread is not about
me or how Kinook dealt with me. That's just window dressing.

A poster on this forum
asked whether URp v4 was worth the price. I said I didn't think so & I gave my reasons why.
End of story.

I said myself in another thread that I was disappointed with v4, in fact I asked on UR forum whether it's paid upgrade or not. So I'm not doing any "window dressing". This thread evolved as it evolved, and I think it's totally irrelevant what the original topic was. But you have the right not to answer my question, and don't worry, I won't bring it up in every thread you participate in ;-)

To try to return to the original topic -- viz., is the UR 4 upgrade worth it? -- I would say a resounding yes. Aside from Jan R's (who apparently is in the PR business, by the way) bruised feelings regarding the rude treatment he allegedly received once in the UR forum (even a monkey sometimes falls out of a tree, as we say here in Korea), the only complaint mentioned in this particular [Outliner Software] forum topic is kinook's terse and often not very user-friendly responses in the UR forum (the help file could use some tweaking), unlike Zoot, where the software developer seems to be bubbling with friendliness.

Please listen to this interview:

http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/ch9/9/5/2/2/7/1/MicroISVShow-5-032206-KyleAlons.wma

Kyle Alons founded kinook, a small ("two of us" -- maybe now three) ISV, in 1999. He is a very young software developer who graduated from Oral Roberts University (BS, computer science), and he moved to Colorado Springs, Colorado, where he now lives. They have two products: Visual Build and Ultra Recall. Perhaps this is the reason their responses in the UR forum are so terse (usually within a day or so, though: I can imagine the enormous work involved in maintaining their two products, especially Visual Build.

But aside from an occasional misstep (namely, the harsh treatment Jan R allegedly received, as he never tires of reminding us), kinook continues to improve UR. I upgraded to 4.0 immediately, and I hope others will, too. It is a very small and good software company that deserves our support in these dire financial times.