I do not have an issue with paying for software.

Moderators: Luke Jefferson, Greg.Tillman, Clive Tong

I do not have an issue with paying for software.

Postby sirflimflam » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:23 am

However, Redgate, I think what you're doing is underhanded and sleazy. Leaving the time bomb code in after Lutz handed over the code should have been a clear indication of what was to come. Anyone who feels this turn of events wasn't calculated from the beginning is fooling themselves.

I'm fine with paying for software, but when you offer something for free and then intentionally cripple it, forcing users to pay just to obtain the same software seems asinine. I've never even heard of this happening before.

Version 7 should stand on its own merit, and version 6 should remain free. If you can't do that, Redgate, then I think your whole involvement in this software was nothing more than a bait and switch. If version 7 actually had new features to supersede a still free version 6, I would not even be opposed to paying for it!

I intend on voting with my wallet with this one and will depart with the release of version 7. I will look to alternatives even if it ends up costing me more on principle alone. I simply cannot trust a company who makes such underhanded moves and I truly hope you realize the error of your ways.
sirflimflam
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:08 am

Postby JDelekto » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:05 pm

Greets sirflimflam,

To be honest, I don't think they've done anything underhanded and sleazy. The "time bomb" in the code, to which you refer, is mainly the forced upgrade to the latest version to continue using the software.

I am convinced that the whole purpose of this was *not* to get people to pay for the software (how many years since Lutz released it and Red-Gate took over has it been free now?) but instead, to reduce the amount of support e-mails and requests from people who are using versions of the software that have known defects, deficiences or lack of features.

Think about it, by keeping people on the "same page" as the sole developer who was working on the application, they could limit the "background noise" from people who managed to get their hands on an older version which had probably circulated the Web tenfold. It is actually an ingenious strategy in avoiding support requests.

Now, I'm not sure about intentionally crippling software; however, I think that the meager sum of $35 (probably less than the cost for dinner out for two at a decent restaurant) is well worth having a copy of the software without any of the future "forced upgrades"; however, they will have to deal with that in support for those who paid within the agreed time range. There is always a trade-off.

If they can get version 7 to correctly decompile custom iterators (in which C# generates a 'state machine'), that would be impressive enough to pay that and more.

Unlike you, I am not departing with my wallet; in fact, I was so impressed by their performance and memory profiling tools, that I bought the .NET Developer bundle (which comes with .NET Reflector Pro), so I will get version 7 when it is released. I am not sure what 'prinicple' it is for which you would not contribute a small sum for such a great product that a company has actually updated throughout the time of its acquisition. As a developer community, we should still be supporting our own developer who continue to develop tools that make our lives easier.

There have been other .NET decompilers; however, they are not free. There are even some that have 'deobfuscation'; however, unless you are in the industry of stealing intellectual property, it is probably not worth the time or money to go after those more expensive products which will cost you at least ten times the amount they are asking for Reflector.

Hopefully you find the best utility out there which does not either shrink your wallet or compromise your principles!

Cheers!
JDelekto
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:36 pm

Re:

Postby RichardD » Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:07 pm

JDelekto wrote:The "time bomb" in the code, to which you refer, is mainly the forced upgrade to the latest version to continue using the software.


Which was fine when the latest version was free. As soon as the latest version costs money, no matter how little it costs, the time-bomb becomes unacceptable.

I don't have a problem with them charging for v7; I don't have a problem with them refusing to support v6.5; I do have a problem with them forcing everyone who's happy to continue with v6.5 to pay for an upgrade to v7.

Ironically, if they'd announced that they were removing the time-bomb from v6.5, I would have been inclined to pay for v7. By announcing that the time-bomb will remain they have shown a total lack of respect for their users, which has only been reinforced by their responses in this forum.
RichardD
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:44 pm


Return to .NET Reflector 7.0 Feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests