Search Again:

Re: Update from 3.0 to 3.5

From: Men & Mice Support
Date: Friday, May 4, 2001
Time: 6:48:37 am

Matt,

Did you not receive the response from our sales department?

At 3:29 PM +0200 5/4/01, Matt Henderson wrote:
>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).

That's not what I said.

>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.)

Please see the response our sales department sent you. It addresses this.

>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.

Again, please see the response our sales department sent you.

>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,

A single license no longer works for two servers, as of 3.5. (Of
course, for those upgrading, please see my previous post about the
upgrade policy - we're not taking away functionality as part of the
upgrade.)
____________________________________________________________________
Chris Buxton Men & Mice
cbuxton@menandmice.com We Make DNS Easy!



Messages In This Thread:



Return to Digital Point Solutions' Home Page