[TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )
Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX
Fri, 06 Sep 2002 08:14:56 -0500
I'd agree. Typically companies do make initial "bug fixes" on a FOC basis.
However, there is a point when most will start charging for software
releases. These releases do include new enhancement and most often bug
I certainly don't mind paying for updates and enhancements. Presently, here
on the computer I've 4 or 5 annual subscriptions that I pay to keep the
operating system and various programs current.
I've just spent $49 for my annual subscription to Norton. For that I get
weekly updates on virus definitions for one year then I get to pay another
$49. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this approach and I'm glad to
write the check for $49. I'd be glad to do the same with Tentec.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich McCabe" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )
> " I do not like the idea of paying for software updates which are now
> without something in exchange"
> That is kinda like saying I do not like paying for automobiles when
> is currently free. That may be the case for some, and I am not sure
> why you think you are "entitled to something in exchange". Did I miss
> making the statement that updates will always be free? I honestly do not
> know, so that is a question.
> I would rather fund TenTec with a annual fee so they can do more with what
> already own. How can we as hams expect them to continually improve (for
> free) software for products they have already sold. What is the incentive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tongaloa" <email@example.com>
> To: "Duane Grotophorst" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX"
> <RMcGraw@blomand.net>; "Howard smith" <email@example.com>;
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 11:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )
> > I do not like the idea of paying for software updates which are
> > now free, without something in exchange. That something being
> > a lower price on the hardware and an open source approach to the
> > software so that we could 'roll our own' tweaks. Under a GPL type
> > license, TenTec would benefit from third party effort applied to the
> > code because it is written for their radios!
> > I for one would be all over a <$500 computer controlled receiver
> > built around a single SHARC processor if I had access to the source
> > code to add to and modify at will. I suspect there would be a huge
> > crossover of computer hobbiests who are interested in DSP and TenTec
> > would see huge sales compared to their traditional amateur market.
> > A significant number of these purchasers will become interested
> > enough in ham radio to want a transmitter as well. A rising tide
> > of purchasers for all TT products!
> > If TT does not follow this course, someone else will.
> > Bob wb4mnf
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> TenTec mailing list