Anyone saw this?
http://newsroom.progress.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=86919&p=NewsArticle&id=1221728
Casper.
http://newsroom.progress.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=86919&p=NewsArticle&id=1221728
Casper.
10.2A available (?)
- Thread starter Casper
- Start date
TomBascom
Curmudgeon
Habitual pointless secrecy is deeply embedded in the company's psyche.
Join the cause and fight back -- refuse to agree to pointless NDA's and decline beta programs until they get the message! Make sure to tell product management and your sales people that you're doing so as a matter of principle.
They will claim that they are insisting on secrecy for legal reasons and that they have no choice in the matter. They're full of it. MSFT doesn't act this way. Nor does Oracle or any other successful software company. Sales and Product Management need to go to the lawyers and instruct them to find policies that are compatible with appropriate openness. It can be done. It's not that hard but somebody at Progress needs to feel like there is a reason to change. Progress Who? will not be defeated until this attitude changes.
Join the cause and fight back -- refuse to agree to pointless NDA's and decline beta programs until they get the message! Make sure to tell product management and your sales people that you're doing so as a matter of principle.
They will claim that they are insisting on secrecy for legal reasons and that they have no choice in the matter. They're full of it. MSFT doesn't act this way. Nor does Oracle or any other successful software company. Sales and Product Management need to go to the lawyers and instruct them to find policies that are compatible with appropriate openness. It can be done. It's not that hard but somebody at Progress needs to feel like there is a reason to change. Progress Who? will not be defeated until this attitude changes.
tamhas
ProgressTalk.com Sponsor
Note, however, that refusing the NDA and participation in the beta might make you feel noble, but it won't get you early access to the software. They have had no trouble getting enough beta participants ... in fact, the current beta forum has more messages on it than any other PSDN forum, some of which have been running for years.
PSC, unlike MSFT, doesn't like announcing dates and then having them slip, so they wait until they are *really* sure that they can make the ship date before going public with it. That means that they really need to have a gold build they are willing to live with as an initial release, i.e., a cutoff where they are willing for any additional changes to go into SP01.
PSC, unlike MSFT, doesn't like announcing dates and then having them slip, so they wait until they are *really* sure that they can make the ship date before going public with it. That means that they really need to have a gold build they are willing to live with as an initial release, i.e., a cutoff where they are willing for any additional changes to go into SP01.
TomBascom
Curmudgeon
I have no interest in having access to beta software that I cannot speak freely about. So far as I'm concerned that is PSC's loss, not mine.
I tell that to the product management people every time that I see them. Maybe someday they will at least start tracking the people who refuse the NDA on the beta program application (currently they don't even track it so they have no idea if I'm a lone wolf or if I'm just more vocal than my horde of fellow-travellers).
I'm perfectly happy to sign and abide by NDAs that make sense and which protect bona-fide secrets that are worthy of such measures. Beta programs do not meet that test and so long as PSC insists on tying an NDA to a beta program I will continue to refuse to participate.
Does your NDA allow you to disclose the existence of a beta program and a beta forum?
Scheduling accuracy has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriateness of an NDA. Or a restricted access beta program.
PSC's penchant for pointless secrecy is a big part of "Progress Who?". People need to tell them that the secrecy is not welcome and that it is not useful.
Perhaps it makes some people feel good about themselves to be among the elite who are "in the know" regarding beta programs but it does PSC no good what so ever to hold back information regarding what is in upcoming products.
If PSC wants to keep release dates secret so they can't be accused of slipping schedules that's fine, that's their prerogative. But they can do that without running closed beta programs that are encumbered by counter-productive NDAs. Given their position in the marketplace they should be running OPEN beta programs with MDA (Must Disclose Agreement) in order to drum up some interest and excitement rather than throwing wet blankets over things.
tamhas
ProgressTalk.com Sponsor
Well, if anyone didn't know your feelings about NDAs before, I guess they know them now!
Without exactly disagreeing with you, I would like to make a couple of clarifications...
NDAs tend to be something imposed on product managers by legal departments, not something that the product manager dreams up as a keen idea. PSC's legal department has rather tight-a**ed attitudes in a number of places, so it isn't surprising that the want NDAs all over the place to cover their a**. But, it isn't really fairly to beat up the product managers about it.
In practical terms, it also isn't much of a constraint. Significant new features of pending releases get talked about at Exchange and thus are previously disclosed material, which they can't control. The only time I have had them ask me to retract or correct something was when I posted a handout from Exchange ... but then, it was their copyright material. Stupid perhaps, but within their right.
Now, I can see why you would think that your not having the beta was PSC's loss, but I suppose you can also understand that they aren't likely to see it that way. Pretty hard to deny that you lose out on the early exposure though. Given your fondness for ChUI, I don't suppose that you have a lot of interest in ABL for .NET, so that isn't much of a loss either way. All I was trying to point out is that PSC gets to make the rules here and one should recognize that the consequence of refusing to sign the NDA is to not get to play with the toys.
One might also note that there wouldn't be a lot of point in MSFT having every beta user sign and NDA ... if you hand out that many copies, someone is going to talk somewhere, so why pretend. You want to bet, though, that they use NDAs too and are quite serious about it when they aren't flinging software across half the known universe.
My remarks about the schedule have nothing to do with NDA. The point is not that the date is determined, but secret. The beta participants don't have a date either. The point was that they have a target window, but they only set a firm date after the cutoff and gold build. Before then, there is nothing to keep secret except some vague targets on a planners calender.
Without exactly disagreeing with you, I would like to make a couple of clarifications...
NDAs tend to be something imposed on product managers by legal departments, not something that the product manager dreams up as a keen idea. PSC's legal department has rather tight-a**ed attitudes in a number of places, so it isn't surprising that the want NDAs all over the place to cover their a**. But, it isn't really fairly to beat up the product managers about it.
In practical terms, it also isn't much of a constraint. Significant new features of pending releases get talked about at Exchange and thus are previously disclosed material, which they can't control. The only time I have had them ask me to retract or correct something was when I posted a handout from Exchange ... but then, it was their copyright material. Stupid perhaps, but within their right.
Now, I can see why you would think that your not having the beta was PSC's loss, but I suppose you can also understand that they aren't likely to see it that way. Pretty hard to deny that you lose out on the early exposure though. Given your fondness for ChUI, I don't suppose that you have a lot of interest in ABL for .NET, so that isn't much of a loss either way. All I was trying to point out is that PSC gets to make the rules here and one should recognize that the consequence of refusing to sign the NDA is to not get to play with the toys.
One might also note that there wouldn't be a lot of point in MSFT having every beta user sign and NDA ... if you hand out that many copies, someone is going to talk somewhere, so why pretend. You want to bet, though, that they use NDAs too and are quite serious about it when they aren't flinging software across half the known universe.
My remarks about the schedule have nothing to do with NDA. The point is not that the date is determined, but secret. The beta participants don't have a date either. The point was that they have a target window, but they only set a firm date after the cutoff and gold build. Before then, there is nothing to keep secret except some vague targets on a planners calender.
TomBascom
Curmudgeon
1) It's their loss. They aren't getting my beta feedback about other parts of the product either.
2) Microsoft uses NDAs when it makes sense. When there is an actual secret that it is beneficial for them to protect. I cannot think of a product for which PSC could justify such protection for in 20+ years. Certainly not every freaking beta program.
3) Microsoft spreads their beta programs to the world via open downloads on the web site. What a concept. Then again they also seem to understand this thing called "marketing" that hasn't every been heard of in Bedford.
4) The schedules aren't very secret anyway. They're well known to within 90 days and publicly discussed well in advance.
5) The product managers are the people at PSC who suffer the most from this policy. They may not have dreamed it up and they seem blissfully unaware but they are the ones who are in the best position to object to it and to demand that legal to do something about it. Thus they are the ones who need to have their ears & eyes opened, hear the cries of customer dissatisfaction and see the light.
2) Microsoft uses NDAs when it makes sense. When there is an actual secret that it is beneficial for them to protect. I cannot think of a product for which PSC could justify such protection for in 20+ years. Certainly not every freaking beta program.
3) Microsoft spreads their beta programs to the world via open downloads on the web site. What a concept. Then again they also seem to understand this thing called "marketing" that hasn't every been heard of in Bedford.
4) The schedules aren't very secret anyway. They're well known to within 90 days and publicly discussed well in advance.
5) The product managers are the people at PSC who suffer the most from this policy. They may not have dreamed it up and they seem blissfully unaware but they are the ones who are in the best position to object to it and to demand that legal to do something about it. Thus they are the ones who need to have their ears & eyes opened, hear the cries of customer dissatisfaction and see the light.
ABLsaurusRex
New Member
Yes. FCS was this week. PSDN is due to be updated next week.
