Re: SERIAL NUMBER PROBLEM *AGAIN*!!!
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 1998
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 21287
interpreted = N
texte = Pat McCormick wrote: > > ...which stands to reason, in light of how well the rest of > the product is designed. > > The people who are doing the most bitching about this are > probably the same ones running the server on the same machine with their > browser and editing software, so rebooting takes too long. Many of the > emails are worded to make it sound as if being unable to relaunch software > on an unstable machine somehow does a disservice to customers. PCS would do > well to preserve this as a feature since it forces a re-launch and prevents > unstable operation from inaccurately tarnishing the reputation of the > product. > Smooch, Smooch, Kiss, Kiss is fine for you; at least for the moment.As for me, my server spent more than half of the five hours I spent reviewing a new site with a client *rebooting*. Sorry, but the time will come when your squeeky clean server runs into this problem and when it does, none of your rhetoric about server hygene will save you from your angry customers.There has been speculation about why this problem has become more common over time. After spending all day rewriting code and corresponding with PCS tech support, my opinion is that the real problem is not related to time or the copy protection per se, but to certain combinations of DNA, or the lack there of, that crash Webcat. Ken has found at least one and I have managed to eliminate at least one from my pages. This is becoming more of a problem over time simply because version 3.0 is new to the marketplace and as time goes by, more people are writing more pages with more combinations of DNA. If PCS can make WebCat 100% immune to bad code, then their copy protection scheme is fine. Until then, the current implementation will end up biting too many customers. Except you and yours, of course.When we have angry customers, PCS has angry customers. This is just the nature of business. Getting on your high horse doesn't help the problem. I have dealt with plenty of software vendors who take your attitude that it's the customer's fault. Hey, your system is running fine so it must be, right? In fact, PCS has been very responsive to this problem and they have not adopted your attitude in dealing with me. We have been in email contact and a new version that they sent me seems to have stablized my system for the time being. In fact, my client has been going through his new site this evening and is quite happy with it. Mike Davis
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Pat McCormick wrote: > > ...which stands to reason, in light of how well the rest of > the product is designed. > > The people who are doing the most bitching about this are > probably the same ones running the server on the same machine with their > browser and editing software, so rebooting takes too long. Many of the > emails are worded to make it sound as if being unable to relaunch software > on an unstable machine somehow does a disservice to customers. PCS would do > well to preserve this as a feature since it forces a re-launch and prevents > unstable operation from inaccurately tarnishing the reputation of the > product. > Smooch, Smooch, Kiss, Kiss is fine for you; at least for the moment.As for me, my server spent more than half of the five hours I spent reviewing a new site with a client *rebooting*. Sorry, but the time will come when your squeeky clean server runs into this problem and when it does, none of your rhetoric about server hygene will save you from your angry customers.There has been speculation about why this problem has become more common over time. After spending all day rewriting code and corresponding with PCS tech support, my opinion is that the real problem is not related to time or the copy protection per se, but to certain combinations of DNA, or the lack there of, that crash Webcat. Ken has found at least one and I have managed to eliminate at least one from my pages. This is becoming more of a problem over time simply because version 3.0 is new to the marketplace and as time goes by, more people are writing more pages with more combinations of DNA. If PCS can make WebCat 100% immune to bad code, then their copy protection scheme is fine. Until then, the current implementation will end up biting too many customers. Except you and yours, of course.When we have angry customers, PCS has angry customers. This is just the nature of business. Getting on your high horse doesn't help the problem. I have dealt with plenty of software vendors who take your attitude that it's the customer's fault. Hey, your system is running fine so it must be, right? In fact, PCS has been very responsive to this problem and they have not adopted your attitude in dealing with me. We have been in email contact and a new version that they sent me seems to have stablized my system for the time being. In fact, my client has been going through his new site this evening and is quite happy with it. Mike Davis
Mike Davis
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Is this possible, WebCat2.0 and checkboxes (1997)
[OT] Mom's gift (2006)
snicker, snicker (1997)
re: Large Database Options? (1999)
Message Boards (2003)
Multiple prices (1997)
Nested tags count question (1997)
[WebDNA] Basic Search (2008)
Interfacing WebMerchant to www.fedex.com (1997)
Exists? (1997)
[OT] Stuff (2002)
Bug or syntax error on my part? (1997)
RE: Error: template (1997)
shipcost (1997)
[cart] generation (1998)
Software & Sites (1998)
Multiple Ad databases? (1997)
WebCatalog 3.0.4 alias crash bug? (2000)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [showif][search][/showif] (1997)
webcat- multiple selection in input field (1997)