Search Again: Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 From: Matt Henderson Date: Friday, May 4, 2001 Time: 6:32:06 am on 5/4/01 2:34 PM, Dale Therio at stuff@colony.net wrote: > So this means we pay for an upgrade that gives us LESS? > > Also no place in the upgrade information did anything state that > you would be limited to a particular platform. In fact, it > stated that 3.5 was multi-platform in the marketing information. > > This is not a good move on your part in regards to customer > satisfaction. At this point, it would seem that the upgrade from > 2.x to 3.0 was a big waste of money. Yeah, I'm not sure what exactly was the point of the 'free-upgrade' promotion - when (as far as I can tell) the only changes in 3.5 was the cross-platform functionality (which we now learn isn't free). In our case, we only have two operational machines - one MacOS and one Linux. Since I don't have the experience to manage BIND on the Linux machine, we've been contracting a third-party to provide secondary DNS support. With the announcement of QDNS 3.5, and the indication of a free upgrade for 3.0 users, I thought this would finally give me the chance to operate my own secondary on the Linux machine (and free myself of the third-party.) That's why I invested the time to beta test the Linux software. At least for customers like me, an acceptable policy would be to remove any cross-platform restrictions, and allow two-servers on one license, or at least make the cost of any additional license a small delta ($50?) with respect to the original single-license cost (especially keeping in mind that the Linux software isn't even a server.) Having discovered that there are free (granted, less sophisticated) alternatives to the QDNS Remote for managing BIND, I simply couldn't justify to spend the additional $495 just to run the secondary. Actually, I wonder who the primary market would be for the new 3.5 software (with its licensing/pricing policy)? Certainly MacOS customers in my situation would not have an economic incentive to try the Linux software, when they could either run a second Mac for free under the single-platform, dual-server license, or use the freely available BIND admin tools. And it would seem that organizations who are already Unix/BIND-based would be unlikely to spend $500 per server just for a graphical administration interface to run under (presumably) Windows (and that's certainly confirmed by the four professional Unix administrators I spoke with). Anyway, that's just some random thoughts, not really complaints. -- Matt Henderson -- MAKALUMEDIA INTERNET & ENGINEERING SERVICES GMBH matt@makalumedia.com

Messages In This Thread: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Alejandro Lopez Rumayor on May 3, 2001 at 5:54:49 pm Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Men & Mice Support on May 3, 2001 at 7:14:32 pm Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Alejandro Lopez Rumayor on May 3, 2001 at 7:45:24 pm Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Men & Mice Support on May 3, 2001 at 7:52:04 pm Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Matt Henderson on May 4, 2001 at 3:11:39 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Men & Mice Support on May 4, 2001 at 3:40:46 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Matt Henderson on May 4, 2001 at 3:44:51 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Men & Mice Support on May 4, 2001 at 3:57:36 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Dale Therio on May 4, 2001 at 5:34:17 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Matt Henderson on May 4, 2001 at 6:32:06 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Men & Mice Support on May 4, 2001 at 6:39:03 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Steve Craig on May 4, 2001 at 6:42:03 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Men & Mice Support on May 4, 2001 at 6:48:37 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Men & Mice Support on May 4, 2001 at 6:52:18 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Matt Henderson on May 4, 2001 at 7:00:12 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Dale Therio on May 4, 2001 at 7:01:47 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Michael Reaves on May 4, 2001 at 10:27:07 am Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5 by Petur Petursson on May 4, 2001 at 4:18:14 pm