Maintenance Releases??? 3.01? 3.02???

[brookd]

I have an open bug that has been open since July, since 3.0 was released. Basically its 4 months old and I am still waiting for a fix.

I see there is a 3.02 release for customers who have purchased a support subscription. But what about the rest of us who have purchased valid licenses and/or without a license. Are we expected to just live with the bugs because the patches are being withheld in order to encourage the purchase of a support subscription?

That doesn't seem fair to me, considering I have been buying a new license for each new release of EXT. Now, when I need something that is marketed as a feature of the v3.0 release, (which I paid hundreds of dollars for a license), which has a bug, I have to pay more money just to get the bug fix? I don't get that. So if there are bugs in the software, is the policy "tough unless you purchase a support subscription or wait 4+ months for a possible update"?

I'm confused, please correct me where I am wrong.

[brookd]

Well, geez, thanks for the great 'support' VinylFox.

I've seen these kind of replies throughout this forum from members of the "Ext Support Team". Always, snarky and bordering on rude.

I would bet money, I am not the only person that has noticed the tone of the responses from the Ext Support team. It doesn't really seem like you value your customers considering the way you talk to us.

No need to be rude.. And I can't believe your trying to turn around and place the blame on me for not posting to your standards, or blaming the fact that I waited months to see if something would be released to the public before returning to my previous bug post thread as the reason this hasn't been fixed.

My original bug post provided code to replicate the problem, and screenshots of the problem:
http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74276

And should have been more than enough to be able to identify the bug and provide a reproducible scenario.

So get off your high horse Vinyl Fox and stop making the company you look for look bad through your rudeness to your paying customers.

[httpdotcom]

It is very easy to see both sides of the equation here...

Condor, Animal, VinylFox, etc. get the same questions over and over (and over) each day, and sometimes can be a bit abrupt with their responses, possibly hoping that it will drive the user to a result they may not have researched fully, or to get them to read the sticky "How to get your question answered" post.

Users are getting frustrated with said abrupt responses, especially when they make every attempt to be concise with their questions, provide well-formatted example code, and wait...hoping for a solution they can't see, or don't have the applicable skillset just yet.

The issue that maintenance releases are being withheld seems petty, especially when they do affect migration strategies. I am still trying to find out why a simple PHP-json_encoded store in 2.x will load, while the same code won't in 3.0, but the issue is supposed to fixed in in a maintenance release (http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72692, http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68726), which I can't get (I also do not have SVN access). The Ext staff making money keeps development alive, but where should the line be drawn when new bugs are being introduced, with no resolution for days/weeks/months until the next patch?

[brookd]

Yeah right, I am trying to side step the issue, because god forbid people find out the truth that I did not check back on a forum post for a month. Well, that being what it is, I guess, I must be the one to blame for the bug not being fixed or it being fixed, but only being available to users with a support subscription.

Big freaking deal, I didn't check back on my forum post. I posted all the relevant information and checked back to see if a fix was available (this is after a few additional posts of course which you did not include..).

Yeah, apparently you need to just spell it out for me. Oh thank you, oh great and wise VinylFox for showing me the error of my ways. All hail the wonderful vinylFox. Thank you for correcting my grammatical mistake aswell. Does it make you feel big and special to point that out? How freaking petty are you?

[brookd]

Sure, I can try to be more polite. Your first reply..


"I would suggest that next time you post a bug that you provide more information, and respond to questions promptly instead of waiting weeks to reply. Might help your 'situation'."

..got under my skin because it was not at all helpful, a little bit condescending and came across more like you would prefer to just place the blame on me and that I'm an in a 'situation' (whatever that means). You get what you give VinylFox.

[httpdotcom]

@VF
brookd and I have both stated we don't have access to SVN, so 3.0 should be easy to interpret as 3.0.0, but I can see where the minor would be helpful.

[MartiCode]

Fixing bugs takes two people. The reporter, and the fixer.

I would suggest that next time you post a bug that you provide more information, and respond to questions promptly instead of waiting weeks to reply. Might help your 'situation'.
I know there are bugs that have been reported, along with a decent fix, months ago, and that affect basic functionalities, and have yet to make their way into the code (if they ever get there). That doesn't really encourage peoples to make nice bug reports.

Worst of all, if I report today a bug, and it gets fixed, I'll not get the fix in the next release because I didn't pay for support (even though I paid for a license). You better believe that if a customer of mine reported a bug in a software he paid me to write, I'd not only fix it for free but apologize as well (when a customer pays for something, he is supposed to get something that works as advertised). I don't know of any other industry where you can charge your customers to fix manufacturing defect in the product you sold them.

Regarding the attitude towards questions being asked over and over, I do understand it gets irritating but maybe that's the sign something is wrong in the documentation. For example there is an endless stream of questions regarding the ComboBox component: honestly, this component is too complicated and tries to do too many things at once (it's a drop-down select AND a freeform type-ahead text field, which both have very different behavior and usage). Repetitive questions on the forum are a good sign for the developper that something needs to be fixed - after all a software library strength is also to be easy to use and learn, not just to pile on functionalities.

[jay@moduscreate.com]

Please - enough w/ the back and forth. If you guys have beef, please take it to a private message or something.

BrookD does have valid concerns that should be addressed by the people making the decisions.

[jay@moduscreate.com]

Regarding the attitude towards questions being asked over and over, I do understand it gets irritating but maybe that's the sign something is wrong in the documentation.


Most of us are volunteers, thus we elect to be in this role. If someone in the volunteer team has an issue with questions being duplicated, then that is for that person to deal with.

[joeri]

I don't get why there shouldn't be back and forth on a public thread. Isn't the whole point of a forum to discuss back and forth?

[jay@moduscreate.com]

General discussions about the topics on the forum are fine. But personal remarks should be kept to a minimum or a private conversation.

[NateWorcester]

I think the real message of this thread has been diluted by the conversation above but I'm sure some of us would like to know when we can expect a maintenance release. If SVN subscribers have version 3.0.2, when can the rest of us have 3.0.1?

[Bulle Bas]

I dont see a good reason to release bug fixes only to a portion of developers. If Extjs has a good automated test suite (I assume they have), it would be relatively safe to push out intermediate state of code.

The company is trying to get more money by requiring to pay extra support. Trying to improve profits is a sane thing. But I second that the current mechanism is sane.
The customer files a bug report and should ideally not need to sit down with broken code that already has been fixed until a new official release is made.
Heck, if extjs provides everyone svn read access there are likely more support subscription sold, since customers who check out the intermediary state of code will get even more bugs . :D
So yeah, I don't really understand why things are as currently organized.

But personally, I didn't need yet. Just to heat up the discussion ;)

[azuroff]

If SVN subscribers have version 3.0.2, when can the rest of us have 3.0.1?

You can't. You have to wait until all the fixes are rolled into 3.1 if you have a commercial license but not a support subscription.

http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=393316#post393316

[TizianoF]

You can't. You have to wait until all the fixes are rolled into 3.1 if you have a commercial license but not a support subscription.

http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=393316#post393316

So that means that if you do not pay you won't ever have a stable release. It's sure that the new features in version 3.1 will introduce new bugs...

This decision by ext makes no sense to me :-?

[MartiCode]

This decision by ext makes no sense to me :-?
Well it makes sense in that it tries to generate as much income as possible from ExtJS. Obviously everyone needs to earn a living, but I think this is pushing things way too far.

[Bugs]

Its the same issue with Ext GWT (GXT). Each x.0 release has been buggy and with this new rule you will basically have to pick what bugs you want.

Should I use buggy GXT 2.0.1 or wait for 2.1 which will probably introduce new bugs? None of these releases will be stable enough to use for production.

[TizianoF]

Well it makes sense in that it tries to generate as much income as possible from ExtJS. Obviously everyone needs to earn a living, but I think this is pushing things way too far.

What's next then? Release buggy versions just to get more people to buy a maintenance release to get the bugs fixed?
And another question came to my mind. What if I get the point release without having a support maintenance but just a license (files can be easily downloaded from a website using it)? Will I be entitled to use it or not?

At least up until a few months ago you could get most of the bug fixes in the forum as overiddes, so, if you have some time, you could at least get something usable.

An example: ext 2.2.1 had a buggy grid view, it was completely unusable. The fix was posted in the forum, and version 2.3 came only a lot of months later. Now you would have just got something like "fixed in the svn".

:-?

[abe.elias]

Before your imagination gets the best of you, I suggest reading what we are doing to make the product better for everyone.

http://www.extjs.com/products/releases.php

I responded to a similar thread here:
http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=392354#post392354

There's nothing nefarious going on, just more value for a support subscriber.

It might make you feel better to think of 3.0.2 as 3.0-subscriber-branch-r24123. We just felt former was more maintainable.

[TizianoF]

Before your imagination gets the best of you, I suggest reading what we are doing to make the product better for everyone.

http://www.extjs.com/products/releases.php

I responded to a similar thread here:
http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=392354#post392354

There's nothing nefarious going on, just more value for a support subscriber.

It might make you feel better to think of 3.0.2 as 3.0-subscriber-branch-r24123. We just felt former was more maintainable.

Your release plan is nice, but you are missing an important point. Ext has an history of bugged releases.

From what I have seen in the last year, every new release introduced new bugs on existing features and without the patches they would have been unsuable.

So before deciding for a new release plan, you should do a better job in testing the releases you give out to the public! On most cases even your examples didn't work fully ...

[MartiCode]

There's nothing nefarious going on, just more value for a support subscriber.
...but less value for license buyers, which used to get patch releases and don't anymore. Worst of all, I feel that making existing customers pay extra to get bug fix is very wrong (whereas on the other hand it would be perfectly acceptable to charge for minor release since they bring new features).

[jay@moduscreate.com]

Your release plan is nice, but you are missing an important point. Ext has an history of bugged releases.

What software is *not* released with bugs?

[TizianoF]

What software is *not* released with bugs?

I know, but when even the example doesn't work that's not acceptable... that means the code was not even tested.
And in the last year this happened on every release from what I have seen.

So, considering the past, Ext is simply asking everyone to buy a support package to be able to use their framework.

[MartiCode]

What software is *not* released with bugs?
Some have more than others. As far as GUI frameworks go, I've had very little problems with writing .Net applications for example, however my Ext app is full of workarounds (sometimes for issues that are well documented on this forum). I wish more efforts would be done on polishing existing functions, because I prefer to have a few solid components rather than a hundred that all break in different ways. But that's really another debate I guess.

[abe.elias]

I wish more efforts would be done on polishing existing functions, because I prefer to have a few solid components rather than a hundred that all break in different ways. But that's really another debate I guess.

We are working towards solidifying existing components. 3.1 will have huge improvements.

[Bulle Bas]

I wonder what testing suite extjs uses. There are quite some I get when searching


https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla_automated_testing
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/yuitest/
http://code.google.com/p/jqunit/
http://seleniumhq.org/

[tonedeaf]

What software is *not* released with bugs?
Which software charges their customers for a license and then charges them again to fix bugs?

[TizianoF]

That is a very misleading statement. If you have a license you get your bug fixes, they just come less frequently and are lumped all together.

You are wrong.
You get the next version, that has a lot of more changes than the sum of 3.0.1+3.0.2 bug fixes. It is quite different that a bug fix release.

[MartiCode]

We are working towards solidifying existing components. 3.1 will have huge improvements.
This is very good to know :)

[jburnhams]

That is a very misleading statement. If you have a license you get your bug fixes, they just come less frequently and are lumped all together.
Won't the non-support-subscription releases contain both the bugfixes and new functionality? If so, there's the risk that the non-bugfix code will contain more bugs and so users are constantly in a state of waiting for the next release to get bugfixes.

[azuroff]

Why not allow everyone with a regular commercial license access to 3.0.2 when 3.1 is released? If the 3.0.2 fixes are going to be rolled into 3.1 anyway, this will give us a choice between a bug-fix-only version (3.0.2) and a bug-fix + new feature version (3.1).

[vmorale4]

Why not allow everyone with a regular commercial license access to 3.0.2 when 3.1 is released? If the 3.0.2 fixes are going to be rolled into 3.1 anyway, this will give us a choice between a bug-fix-only version (3.0.2) and a bug-fix + new feature version (3.1).

I think that would be something very sensible. At the very least commercial-license holders should be able to download at the previous previous patch release. i.e. now that 3.0.2 is out, license holders should be able to download 3.0.1

[MartiCode]

I think that would be something very sensible. At the very least commercial-license holders should be able to download at the previous previous patch release. i.e. now that 3.0.2 is out, license holders should be able to download 3.0.1
Frankly there's no reason why paying customers should be forced to use a broken version when a more reliable one is available and would cost virtually nothing to distribute. When you buy anything, it is supposed to come free of defects.

[mschwartz]

Well put MartiCode. I think you have just stated the issue better than anyone yet.

When you buy a vBulletin license, they send you emails constantly about getting updates/upgrades for their software that fix security holes, bugs, and the like.

I think this is what people are asking for and expecting for ExtJS.

[httpdotcom]

Frankly there's no reason why paying customers should be forced to use a broken version when a more reliable one is available and would cost virtually nothing to distribute. When you buy anything, it is supposed to come free of defects.

Frankly, there is no reason not to provide the code to all customers, since it costs Ext nothing additional to distribute. 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 are already available, and fix issues with the 3.0 release. Or, since 3.0.2 has been released, why not make 3.0.1 available to everyone as @vmorale4 stated earlier, without the restriction of a commercial license?

Ext, as a company, could support the community as a whole if they simply removed the requirement of a support contract for SVN access, or, to release minor revisions to the public at large. Telling one customer they can have a fix for a bug, while telling another they can't, based on how much $$ they spent this year, is the argument this thread is based on.

It won't take long for someone to create an open source project (licensed appropriately) that will be restricted to certain versions of Ext because new bugs, and a lack of timely releases, will prevent upgrades.

[joeri]

On the license page, we find the following:

Commercial License (including full source code): $329
Commercial License + Silver Support & Maintenance: $579

So, anyone reading that should know that buying just the license does not include silver support.

Then, further down the page, we find the arrangement of support options, with for the silver support level:
- SVN Access: included
- Monthly Patch Builds: included
- Emergency hot-fix builds: not included

So, in short, if you read what was on that page, and read it carefully, you should have known that buying just the license (without support) did not entitle you to svn access, to patch releases or to hot fixes. If you didn't, then this means you just didn't read this page carefully enough.

On the other hand, that page simply takes too much parsing to understand what it is that people are buying. I would recommend the following changes:
- To make it clear that buying just the license does not include any support:
"Commercial License (including full source code, but excluding any support arrangement)"
- To also make it clear what "just the license" means, add another column to the left of the support options listing "Just the license", and with everything marked as not included.

If people then still persist in complaining they're not getting bugfixes, it's their own fault for not reading.

BUT

I still wholeheartedly disagree with this policy of deliberately excluding the open source part of this community from reasonably timed bugfix access. This is the primary cause of the current decay in extjs popularity inside the wider open source web development community. ExtJS used to be the bee's knees on ajaxian and so on. Now it still gets mentions, but it's not the same. Soon it will be just another proprietary toolkit. Why? People can't rely on Ext if they don't pay up. And that's ok, that's a valid business decision to make, but it will harm the product in the long term. I'm 100% sure of this.

[azuroff]

So, in short, if you read what was on that page, and read it carefully, you should have known that buying just the license (without support) did not entitle you to svn access, to patch releases or to hot fixes. If you didn't, then this means you just didn't read this page carefully enough.

You're right. My bad for assuming that Ext would be like every other software company that I'm familiar with and provide routine bug fixes to paying customers - to be honest it never crossed my mind that they wouldn't do so, so I didn't think to double-check.

[azuroff]

Looking at it another way - if, like us, you don't need or want the premium forum/e-mail support that comes with the silver support subscription, but you want timely bug-fixes, you're looking at -

$329 for a commercial license
$250 on top of that just for bug-fixes

I just don't see how I could justify that to my managers if we wanted to expand the number of seats we license in the future.

While I am glad that we'll have access to 3.1 when it comes out, there will come a point under the current setup where there will be fixed versions out there that we can't use because there won't be a new minor-version release for that branch (i.e. we won't get 3.1.1/3.1.2 because there will never be a 3.2 that includes those fixes)

[Bulle Bas]

On the license page, we find the following:

Commercial License (including full source code): $329
Commercial License + Silver Support & Maintenance: $579

So, anyone reading that should know that buying just the license does not include silver support.


Joeri, you should rename your nick to Captain Obvious. ;) Doh, of course I know the current terms.
But anyways, I agree with your last paragraph. The days in which the code was LGPL licenced, extjs was a loved child. The turnover to GPL + commercial license heated quite some heads.
I can understand the dual licensing scheme, it is a way to make profit of it. But to squeeze out money for a designer, for bug fixes etc will fire the many people that embraces the practices and culture of open source. People that deal more with closed source (e.g. those that use asp.net) are more accustomed to these practices. It could be that extjs is shifting more to those kind of customers.

I find it somewhat less ideal to gather Open Source believers first, and then change faith. On the other hand I can of course understand that people are able to change their mind afterwards, but I would no be happy when the 'open' people will leave this project. Open people share cool components. Open people write tutorials. Open people help others.

It could be a deliberate decision to shift to a different type of customers, but I would regret it.

[joeri]

@VinylFox: I took no offense at what @Bulle Bas said. You didn't need to take any in my place.

Also, I disagree that licensing is off-topic, because what sort of license+support you buy directly reflects your ability to access maintenance releases, and this thread is about maintenance release access.

Still, the discussion should remain scoped on access to maintenance releases. It's good for people to voice their opinion on whether they think ExtJS should or should not offer open access to them. Personally I'm on the side that says they should, because I think the open source community will continue to dwindle if they don't, and that community is one of the reasons I chose to pay for ExtJS. I don't think it's going to affect their bottom-line, because I don't think people are buying support licenses just to get access to the maintenance releases. (Please tell me otherwise if you did just that.)

[MartiCode]

Personally I'm on the side that says they should, because I think the open source community will continue to dwindle if they don't, and that community is one of the reasons I chose to pay for ExtJS. I don't think it's going to affect their bottom-line, because I don't think people are buying support licenses just to get access to the maintenance releases. (Please tell me otherwise if you did just that.)
I bought a license with the idea that I was "buying software" just like anywhere else - that means paying for a piece of software and getting patches if any bug is found and fixed. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have choosed ExtJS for my project and gone with something else - to me it's not just about cost or "closed vs open source" but how customers are treated.

I can't think of a single software publisher that charges its customers for accessing patches - in fact when the bugs are really bad some will actually compensate their customers with freebies. As a programmer myself I'm ashamed of my bugs (I'm paid to provide stuff that works as advertised), it would have never crossed my mind to use them as a mean to generate supplemental income.

[TizianoF]

I bought a license with the idea that I was "buying software" just like anywhere else - that means paying for a piece of software and getting patches if any bug is found and fixed. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have choosed ExtJS for my project and gone with something else - to me it's not just about cost or "closed vs open source" but how customers are treated.

I can't think of a single software publisher that charges its customers for accessing patches - in fact when the bugs are really bad some will actually compensate their customers with freebies. As a programmer myself I'm ashamed of my bugs (I'm paid to provide stuff that works as advertised), it would have never crossed my mind to use them as a mean to generate supplemental income.

+1

[Bugs]

I can't think of a single software publisher that charges its customers for accessing patches - in fact when the bugs are really bad some will actually compensate their customers with freebies. As a programmer myself I'm ashamed of my bugs (I'm paid to provide stuff that works as advertised), it would have never crossed my mind to use them as a mean to generate supplemental income.
Well put MartiCode. I completely agree.

[joeri]

I bought a license with the idea that I was "buying software" just like anywhere else

That's why they have to make the store's licenses page more clear about what you're buying.

Or change the policy.

[grzegorz.borkowski]

Well, geez, thanks for the great 'support' VinylFox.

I've seen these kind of replies throughout this forum from members of the "Ext Support Team". Always, snarky and bordering on rude.

I would bet money, I am not the only person that has noticed the tone of the responses from the Ext Support team. It doesn't really seem like you value your customers considering the way you talk to us.


Such messages are deeply unfair. I've seen several forums for software product, and I've never seen the second one where the questions (on avarage) are being responded so fast as in Ext case. Maybe the author of this criticism lives in different, ideal world than me, I don't know. Look for example at Spring forum, Hibernate forum, etc - very often you will not get any response, or if any, the response is not that helpful, and very rarely it is from software authors - usually it's just from community, and it's of low value. So the fact that I, without paying for support, can get almost immediate responses from Ext authors or support team on community forums, is fantastic, and nobody should undervalue it.

On the other hand, I agree that not having access at all to bug fix releases without paying for support looks wrong. If you buy a car, and manufacturer finds the "bug" in it, they call you and ask to come, and they fix it at no charge. You paid for the product, and any fixes should be included in the price. Obviously, for new features you may have to pay - but not for bug fixes, which are officially available.
IMHO, the paying subscribers should have additional rights - for example, priority in fixing bugs reported by them, access to code before patch release is officially delivered etc.
Otherwise, as somebody noticed, standard users will never have access to stable code. It's normal that new-features releases are buggy, this is a case in any software. That's why patch-releases are published. Restricting normal users from using more-stable software is wrong.
If you are interested, you may check the discussion which started after SpringSourced announced new release policy one year ago - the assumptions were similar to what is an Ext case. After deep criticism however they changed their mind, and fixed the policy.

[azuroff]

I don't think people are buying support licenses just to get access to the maintenance releases.

This is the part that I don't understand. Are there really that many people who would decide not to get a support subscription if you changed the policy and allowed all customers to get fixed versions as they're released? Or will there be more people who decide not to get a license at all once it's widely understood that buying a license doesn't entitle you to receive timely bug-fixes?

[brookd]

Such messages are deeply unfair.

Actually you are right to some extent, since VinylFox does *not* work for ExtJs. I was under the assumption that he did, because of the "Ext JS - Community Support Team" title under his name.

If he worked for ExtJs then, his response was not appropriate to a paying customer. If he's just pitching in and helping the community, then I still consider his response a little rude, but far less of a big deal, since I'm not putting money in *his* pocket, I'm not his customer. So fair enough.

[httpdotcom]

License - http://www.extjs.com/products/license.php
Support Subscription - http://www.extjs.com/store/extjs/#support-table

IMO, a support contract should entitle a user to priority items, like question support, training, priority delivery on bug fixes, etc. (in other words, support...and a support contract provides all of those and more, currently). Changing the distribution methodology should not impact this.

However, we can all continue posting about this, and it still won't be resolved by the time 3.1 comes out, as it seems a philosophical business decision was made that many of Ext's customers do not agree with. This will result in either more support contracts being sold, or fewer people using ExtJS at all.


I just checked back on the first page of this thread and all of VinylFoxes posts are removed. Whats that all about? It looks like I am talking to myself. Interesting....

This is both interesting and disturbing, as any kind of "punitive" action, or self-censoring, on @VF was not what was intended.

[brookd]

This is both interesting and disturbing, as any kind of "punitive" action, or self-censoring, on @VF was not what was intended.

Actually, never mind. Vinyl and I had a private message to each other where we decided to remove the noise from this thread so that it can stay focused on real issue. I'm gonna remove my earlier posts which are not on topic also. Its important the real issue here is clear.

[abe.elias]

Why not allow everyone with a regular commercial license access to 3.0.2 when 3.1 is released? If the 3.0.2 fixes are going to be rolled into 3.1 anyway, this will give us a choice between a bug-fix-only version (3.0.2) and a bug-fix + new feature version (3.1).

As an aside, I believe QA just released 3.0.3

I'm just catching up on this thread, but this seems like a reasonable request. Minor versions will have even more bug fixes given the time between the patch release and the release of 3.1. In addition, developers reporting bugs with 3.0.3 will be encouraged to use 3.1+.

We always recommend using the latest releases when possible. There are many benefits to running latest releases - the memory issues that Jamie has been working on resolving for the past few months will be included for everyone in 3.1+.

[DocSavage]

I bought a license with the idea that I was "buying software" just like anywhere else - that means paying for a piece of software and getting patches if any bug is found and fixed. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have choosed ExtJS for my project and gone with something else - to me it's not just about cost or "closed vs open source" but how customers are treated.

I agree as well. It's one thing to limit new features to support customers. It's quite another to withhold timely bug fixes from customers who have paid for a license. This needs to be very clear in the purchase options. It probably would have tipped me over (and still might) to using a more open framework.

[tonedeaf]

As an aside, I believe QA just released 3.0.3
Can you accommodate commercial license holders to have an option to access minor-revisions by paying a fair incremental fee? I'm not looking at any other support, just the access to minor revisions.

[abe.elias]

Such messages are deeply unfair. I've seen several forums for software product, and I've never seen the second one where the questions (on avarage) are being responded so fast as in Ext case. Maybe the author of this criticism lives in different, ideal world than me, I don't know. Look for example at Spring forum, Hibernate forum, etc - very often you will not get any response, or if any, the response is not that helpful, and very rarely it is from software authors - usually it's just from community, and it's of low value. So the fact that I, without paying for support, can get almost immediate responses from Ext authors or support team on community forums, is fantastic, and nobody should undervalue it.


We are passionate about making great software. We are even more passionate about helping our community be successful wit Ext.


On the other hand, I agree that not having access at all to bug fix releases without paying for support looks wrong.


3.1 will contain all these fixes. No one is saying otherwise.



Otherwise, as somebody noticed, standard users will never have access to stable code. It's normal that new-features releases are buggy, this is a case in any software. That's why patch-releases are published. Restricting normal users from using more-stable software is wrong.

3.1 will be much more stable than 3.0.

If you read between the lines of these posts, it's not about the roll-up of the SVN commits themselves, but rather the timeliness of having access to them.

[httpdotcom]

3.1 will contain all these fixes. No one is saying otherwise.

No one has said, I believe, that we won't "eventually" get the bug fixes, abe. What we are saying, is that 3.0 was released was some significant new issues. Fixes have been made to some of these issues, and many users do not have access to those fixes at this time.


3.1 will be much more stable than 3.0.

The above statement is an acknowledgement, by an Ext employee, that the company released a product that was not ready for production, and should be releasing patch fixes.

Think about users, like myself, who have to wait until 3.1 to begin developing 2.x migration strategies, because 3.0 was not stable enough to migrate to. 3.0 was a milestone change, and everyone realizes that bugs were inevitable. What we didn't count on was that we couldn't get fixes for those issues in a timely fashion (waiting extra months for the public release of existing bug fixes is, frankly, ridiculous).

While you have said that 3.1 will be more stable, how can we move to 3.1 given our experiences with 3.0, and our new knowledge that we may not see patches 3.1.1 or 3.1.3 for 3-6 months?

[abe.elias]

The above statement is an acknowledgment, by an Ext employee, that the company released a product that was not ready for production, and should be releasing patch fixes.

Think about users, like myself, who have to wait until 3.1 to begin developing 2.x migration strategies, because 3.0 was not stable enough to migrate to. 3.0 was a milestone change, and everyone realizes that bugs were inevitable. What we didn't count on was that we couldn't get fixes for those issues in a timely fashion (waiting extra months for the public release of existing bug fixes is, frankly, ridiculous).

While you have said that 3.1 will be more stable, how can we move to 3.1 given our experiences with 3.0, and our new knowledge that we may not see patches 3.1.1 or 3.1.3 for 3-6 months?

To the extent that there are bugs, we fix them, test the fix, and incorporate them for our community and customers in the form of a minor release.

If there is a need to access SVN and the SVN commit releases (patch releases) we have support subscriptions.

[dorgan]

...them for our community and customers in the form of a minor release...


Your community cannot get access to the minor release unless they pay for a support subscription. So you will start to lose the open source portion of your community as some open source project do not have the $$ to pay for the support subscription, and will not be willing to wait for a non-minor release to come out.....Its like releasing Windows XP and not giving any updates until Vista comes out.

For some that can afford the license and not the support contract is a better XP-Vista analogy.

[abe.elias]

Since nothing has changed, I'm not sure why our open source community would have any issue.

It's very obvious that there's a disconnect with what we have implemented to improve our existing support offering and what some believe to be a change in policy.

I think joeri is correct that we need to communicate this better.

Suggestions?

[MartiCode]

I think joeri is correct that we need to communicate this better.

Suggestions?
Don't make releases for support subscribers, just let them have SVN.
Or let everyone have the latest release when it is available rather than keeping the older one around.

This reminds me of hardware device makers who voluntarily cripple their product in software so they can sell a more expensive "deluxe" version (which is exactly the same, except 1 bit is different in the firmware). This sort of strategy isn't exactly popular.

[abe.elias]

@MartiCode

These are not public releases, they are SVN builds that we take the burden of building so our support customers don't have to.

http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=392354#post392354

I'll keep reiterating that all of these SVN commits will go into our public release just like we always have done. There's no "crippling" of anything, and I am beginning to take offense at your implications.

Nothing has changed for the community or license holders. If anything, we are releasing publicly more frequently than ever before.

[MartiCode]

These are not public releases, they are SVN builds that we take the burden of building so our support customers don't have to.
Well understood, but if that work is done anyway, is there any cost involved in putting for example 3.0.2 for download to everyone instead of the old 3.0.0 ?

[danh2000]

...
I think joeri is correct that we need to communicate this better.

Suggestions?

As 'Support' and 'Maintenance' are currently bundled, what about also selling these as seperate products, then someone could buy a 'license' and a 'maintenance contract' (12 mths SVN) without requiring the support aspect.

[abe.elias]

Well understood, but if that work is done anyway, is there any cost involved in putting for example 3.0.2 for download to everyone instead of the old 3.0.0 ?

Here's what I can commit to. If we are late in delivering 3.1, for whatever reason, we will release the most current point release publicly. This way, we guarantee our non-support subscribers a concrete release schedule that they can rely on.

Does this commitment reassure you? (3.1 is scheduled to be released in less than 30 days.)

[abe.elias]

As 'Support' and 'Maintenance' are currently bundled, what about also selling these as seperate products, then someone could buy a 'license' and a 'maintenance contract' (12 mths SVN) without requiring the support aspect.

That's what we try to do with a Silver Support now. SVN and Monthly Builds, plus the ability to prioritize your bugs by posting in the premium forum and submitting tickets.

[MartiCode]

Here's what I can commit to. If we are late in delivering 3.1, for whatever reason, we will release the most current point release publicly. This way, we guarantee our non-support subscribers a concrete release schedule that they can rely on.

Does this commitment reassure you? (3.1 is scheduled to be released in less than 30 days.)
Thanks, it certainly does. How about making it an official comittment (ie: release the latest bugfix version every 2 month if no major/minor release happened in the meantime) ?

[TizianoF]

Since nothing has changed, I'm not sure why our open source community would have any issue.

Abe, please don't fool the people who bought Ext licenses. Up to a few months ago overiddes were posted on the bug forum for most of the bugs. So, with some time, you could fix the most important issues, or at least the issue you reported.

Now, you don't even give an override to who reports the bug.

[httpdotcom]

@MartiCode

These are not public releases, they are SVN builds that we take the burden of building so our support customers don't have to.

http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=392354#post392354

I'll keep reiterating that all of these SVN commits will go into our public release just like we always have done. There's no "crippling" of anything, and I am beginning to take offense at your implications.

Nothing has changed for the community or license holders. If anything, we are releasing publicly more frequently than ever before.

Abe, please realize that noone, IMO, is trying to say that Ext is doing something improper. What I think there is is a difference in terminology and philosophy, and the subsequent frustration of some.

We are talking about patch releases (major.minor.patch) vs. SVN builds for subscribers. It is obvious that 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 are not SVN builds, but patch releases. Those releases contain bug fixes for issues that were released with 3.0, and are unavailable to many of your users, causing subsequent issues with migrations, or could even be affecting adoption by new users. While I am sure everyone appreciates your assurance of a release of some sort, should the 3.1 release milestone not be reached, can you explain what detrimental effect would be had in releasing 3.0.1 or 3.0.2, to the general public, in their current state?

[abe.elias]

Abe, please realize that noone, IMO, is trying to say that Ext is doing something improper. What I think there is is a difference in terminology and philosophy, and the subsequent frustration of some.

We are talking about patch releases (major.minor.patch) vs. SVN builds for subscribers. It is obvious that 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 are not SVN builds, but patch releases. Those releases contain bug fixes for issues that were released with 3.0, and are unavailable to many of your users, causing subsequent issues with migrations, or could even be affecting adoption by new users. While I am sure everyone appreciates your assurance of a release of some sort, should the 3.1 release milestone not be reached, can you explain what detrimental effect would be had in releasing 3.0.1 or 3.0.2, to the general public, in their current state?

We need to have a strong value proposition for support subscriptions so that Ext, as a company, can provide you guys with awesome tools. That said, we need to find a balance between license and support subscriptions.

As a result of these talks, we will be releasing all SVN patch builds when we release 3.1. This way, if there's an issue with 3.1, license holders will still be able to upgrade to 3.0.1 - 3.0.3.

Our intention was never to make any of you feel like you are forced into purchasing a subscription. Going forward, our hopes is that many of you will find value in support subscriptions (and optionally purchase them) so that we can continue to dedicate resources to making Ext the strong foundation you build on.

[MartiCode]

We need to have a strong value proposition for support subscriptions
I think this is the source of the problem: bugs are what you call in any other industry a manufacturing defects. Whoever sells software has a moral obligation to provide a reasonably bug-free products, and if bugs show up to provide timely and free fixes to its customers.

The EU is in fact considering making it a legal obligation : EC wants software makers held liable for code (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39649689,00.htm) :

"Licensing should guarantee consumers the same basic rights as when they purchase a good: the right to get a product that works with fair commercial conditions."We all understand that Ext needs to get incomes to keep producing the JS framework we all love, and we all hope the company will be successful because it means the framework will grow and get better. But I think these incomes should come from selling features (advanced or new components, GUI designer, IDE, personal assistance, etc.), as most company do.

[Jubei]

I think this is the source of the problem: bugs are what you call in any other industry a manufacturing defects. Whoever sells software has a moral obligation to provide a reasonably bug-free products, and if bugs show up to provide timely and free fixes to its customers.

The EU is in fact considering making it a legal obligation : EC wants software makers held liable for code (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39649689,00.htm) :
We all understand that Ext needs to get incomes to keep producing the JS framework we all love, and we all hope the company will be successful because it means the framework will grow and get better. But I think these incomes should come from selling features (advanced or new components, GUI designer, IDE, personal assistance, etc.), as most company do.

I recently purchased a commercial license without support. I suspect I should have read a bit more carefully. I am in agreement with the majority of MartiCode's points. I am by no means new to software development or the RIA sphere. I am moving from Adobe after having used Flex for quite some time.

I cannot recall EVER having to pay for timely bug fixes and patch releases as part of a support contract. I understand that we will eventually get them, but this is just something that I feel most users are not accustomed to.

In fact about the only thing you are guaranteed to pay for (at least with Adobe) is a major version release i.e. from 2.0 - 3.0 with previous customers getting a nice discount. Anything in-between was always available for download for ALL customers.

I am of course going to continue with version 3.0 since I've paid for it, but I am not so sure about jumping on board with a 4.0 release.

Keep the latest and greatest for the support purchasers, but I feel that important bug fixes should be made available immediately for licensed customers.

[ThorstenSuckow]

I have to admit that the description for the various products Ext is selling can become confusing if you do not take a close look:



Commercial License (including full source code) $XXX
Commercial License + Silver Support & Maintenance (15% Savings) $YYY


It should rather read:



Commercial License (including full source code) $YYY
Commercial License w/o SVN access & w/o patch releases $XXX


(note that XXX and YYY got swapped).

That way, everyone can chose what is best for them - and I see no reason why anyone would complain then.

[joeri]

Yes, what exactly is the objection against rewording the store to be more clear about what people are buying? I mean, we can all debate the merits of charging for faster access to bugfixes, but I don't think anyone disagrees that the store should clearly advertise what it is that people are buying.

@abe.elias: can you explain that one?

[abe.elias]

Thorsten/Joeri,

Lets give it a shot. We've updated the page per your suggestions.

[azuroff]

Thorsten/Joeri,

Lets give it a shot. We've updated the page per your suggestions.

Better, but I think you should explicitly spell it out on this page - http://www.extjs.com/products/license.php


Commercial licenses:


Are on a per developer basis. Each person who directly or indirectly creates an application or user interface containing Ext components is considered a developer.
Are perpetual and include upgrades to all minor revisions. For example: a 3.0 license includes all publicly 3.x releases including 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, etc.
Do not include access to patch releases until they are rolled up into the next minor release. For example: the 3.0.3 patch release will be available to commercial licensees when 3.1 is released.
Are royalty-free.
Remove any obligations to release any source code under GPL.

[abe.elias]

Thank you. I've added that wording to the license page.

[Jubei]

Well, the license is clear now. I may not like it, but it's certainly clear. >:)

[SonicBog]

When I purchase anything in life, I expect that it will work for its' advertised purpose. It the product is not fit for that purpose (manufacturing defects, overly hyped and under delivered etc) then I expect (by law in Australia) that the defects be rectified or a refund provided. I also expect an implied warranty to gurantee that if any problem arises in the set period (usually identified by law), then that problem will also be rectified in a timely manner.

This is just the law enforced aspect of doing business in most countries and what I would expect when buying a commercial license for ExtJS.

The value added aspect of a subscription is the ability to pay extra for additional value in the form of priority support in getting your bug fixed before somebody else's if they have not paid for a subscription. It also comes in the form of getting access to early releases on new versions that contain new functionality, and a guarantee that for the life of the subscription, I will not need to pay any extra for those new versions when they are released.

By the differences in the nature of maintenance releases and new feature releases they should have vastly different turnaround times. Maintenance releases should happen often (depending on the quality of the software and the severity of the problems) while new feature release should take longer to ensure that the release contains enough new functionality to make it worth while and ensure the quality is maintained.

Why is this so hard for the ExtJS team to understand? My value in buying a subscription is not in getting bug fixes, but in the things I have mentioned above.

[ThorstenSuckow]

Why is this so hard for the ExtJS team to understand? My value in buying a subscription is not in getting bug fixes, but in the things I have mentioned above.

I think people should read carefully through the license that comes with Ext JS. You are not buying a product - you are paying for a commercial license that grants you to release your products (build with the licensed software) and earn money with it without putting your code under the same OS (or any of the FLOSS affiliated) license(s).

[SonicBog]

I think people should read carefully through the license that comes with Ext JS. You are not buying a product - you are paying for a commercial license that grants you to release your products (build with the licensed software) and earn money with it without putting your code under the same OS (or any of the FLOSS affiliated) license(s).

I fully understand the concept of what they have stated. However, this does not change the fact that what I am licensing still needs to be fit for the purpose it was licensed for.
If I rent a movie, tv etc, I am not buying the product but a license to use the product for the period specified in the rental agreement. There is still an underlying requirement that whatever it is that I am renting work for the rental period or be fixed/replaced.
If the DVD or TV (or whatever) I rent does not work, you can bet that I would expect the problem to be resolved without additional cost or lengthy delays (unless of course I caused the problem)

[joeri]

It's much clearer now. Thank you. I think this will help remove a lot of the confusion.

Ofcourse, now people will still nag that they don't like your business model, but that's an entirely different discussion. :)

[mschwartz]

Abe,

I think people expect this:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/stories/2002/12/01/understandingTheImportanceOfReleaseEarlyReleaseOften.html

[Mike Robinson]

Abe, I say to you in the friendliest possible way that your customers are speaking. You need to find a different business-model. Your product is good: it deserves the best. Without making light of the legitimate concerns that keep you up at night, "find something that truly works." Your product deserves that.

No reply is needed.

[tonedeaf]

Indeed its the customers who are speaking - Valid commercial license holders, being treated as unlicensed users for getting access to bug fixes. I've never seen an organisation being so protective about bug fixes.

Does the "commercial" license actually makes the library usable for commercial development with bugs crippling our applications? Can we wait for three/four months for releasing our applications?

And this conversation will repeat again with every new minor/major release, because new features bring new bugs.

And the talk about seeing the value proposition in upgrading to support subscriptions, I find zero value proposition in upgrading to a commercial license, is that the kind of support I should expect from ExtJS?

Guys, seriously give your policies more thought than just making the license page more "clear".

[Jubei]

Indeed its the customers who are speaking - Valid commercial license holders, being treated as unlicensed users for getting access to bug fixes. I've never seen an organisation being so protective about bug fixes.

Does the "commercial" license actually makes the library usable for commercial development with bugs crippling our applications? Can we wait for three/four months for releasing our applications?

And this conversation will repeat again with every new minor/major release, because new features bring new bugs.

And the talk about seeing the value proposition in upgrading to support subscriptions, I find zero value proposition in upgrading to a commercial license, is that the kind of support I should expect from ExtJS?

Guys, seriously give your policies more thought than just making the license page more "clear".

I can't agree more. I wish I would have known about this before I purchased it a week ago. I think I may go back to Flex :(

[abe.elias]

For those that are new, Ext has offered SVN to our support subscribers since our inception. To improve our support offering and reduce the burden of compiling SVN commits, we now employ a team to perform these actions. We build svn so you don't have too.

We didn't take anything away from our license holders, we just gave more to our support subscribers. In addition, these builds will be released with our public build - 3.1.0 in just a few days.

[TizianoF]

For those that are new, Ext has offered SVN to our support subscribers since our inception. To improve our support offering and reduce the burden of compiling SVN commits, we now employ a team to perform these actions. We build svn so you don't have too.

We didn't take anything away from our license holders, we just gave more to our support subscribers. In addition, these builds will be released with our public build - 3.1.0 in just a few days.

What about the bug fixed between version 3.03 and 3.1?

We obviously won't get them...

[jburnhams]

We didn't take anything away from our license holders, we just gave more to our support subscribers.
I think the change that people dislike is that previously a fix would be posted in the bug report thread. This encouraged non-support subscribers to report bugs as they would then get a fix. Now bugs reports are usually just closed with "Fixed in svn" meaning that only support subscribers get a fix, where previously everyone (especially those that helped find, diagnose, and fix bugs) could get a fix by finding the bug report in the forum.

[abe.elias]

What about the bug fixed between version 3.03 and 3.1?

We obviously won't get them...


Who said that? All of the support releases that lead up to 3.1 will be available. If there's a 3.0.4 we will release that as well.

Keep in mind, that community support will only be offered on the latest minor releases. Users reporting bugs on 3.0.1- 3.0.4 will need to reproduce them in 3.1.

If 3.1 is not a substantially improved product over 3.0.x then we are not doing our jobs. That is our commitment to you.

[Jabe]

If Ext had really serious bug, like blowing peoples hard drives to smithereens, you still wouldn't release a fix to non-support license holders, right?
That's a foundation I can build on!

[Mike Robinson]

The product is not, and has never been, what your total group of customers has had issue with. The product is very good. But the business/revenue model that ExtJS, Inc. has chosen is (yes, IMHO...) a decidedly inferior choice. Other choices exist, that might well produce more revenue for continued operations than you obviously are experiencing right now. Foundations, voluntary user contributions, and ancillary product-offerings (but not those sold "by the year") might appear to be so nebulous a revenue-source that you dare not imagine that they could actually support your weight. Anyone who uses the ExtJS framework becomes a stakeholder in its long-term success, and we are not blind to the importance of getting paid for what we do.

You don't need to reply to this. Just... consider all of your options, corporately, and please, with due-process, select a better one. For the good of the product.

[joeri]

@Jabe: the ExtJS guys are not idiots. If they shipped a really horrible bug, they'd provide a public fix.

@Mike: the ExtJS "dual license" business model is a very common one, a proven one. The "give it all away foundation-style and make your money off services" model is just not as proven, especially in the software toolkit market. You can't blame them for picking a working business model. Now, I would agree that withholding patch releases from the free part of the community is a bad business move, but to go as far as to say they need to become like mozilla or like dojo, that's one bridge too far for me.

[MartiCode]

Now, I would agree that withholding patch releases from the free part of the community is a bad business move, but to go as far as to say they need to become like mozilla or like dojo, that's one bridge too far for me.
The problem is that patch release are not just withheld from the free part of the community, they are also withheld from people who pay for a license. This is the first time I see a software publisher doing this (and I've been writing software for more than 20 years).

[iagui]

For those that are new, Ext has offered SVN to our support subscribers since our inception. To improve our support offering and reduce the burden of compiling SVN commits, we now employ a team to perform these actions. We build svn so you don't have too.

We didn't take anything away from our license holders, we just gave more to our support subscribers. In addition, these builds will be released with our public build - 3.1.0 in just a few days.


Who said that? All of the support releases that lead up to 3.1 will be available. If there's a 3.0.4 we will release that as well.

Keep in mind, that community support will only be offered on the latest minor releases. Users reporting bugs on 3.0.1- 3.0.4 will need to reproduce them in 3.1.

If 3.1 is not a substantially improved product over 3.0.x then we are not doing our jobs. That is our commitment to you.

You are very wrong with this, you ask for people to buy commercial lincenses or publish their work because "its GPL".

How you dare to make private releases?

Are you joking us?

This is going the same path all crappy microsoft stuff is, with bugged releases only to make people purchase the subscriptions to FIX THE BUGS!!!

If you have bugs and you have fixed them, the fix should be free, even in a commercial non GPL product.

P.S.: You DELETED my post about this, instead of moving it to this thread, you're being very rude.

This is the message I got:
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Closed - ongoing thread here http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82800
***************

[ThorstenSuckow]

Wow, guys, give it up already. It's your choice whether to use this library. If you don't like the business model, move on to another toolkit.

[jburnhams]

This is going the same path all crappy microsoft stuff is, with bugged releases only to make people purchase the subscriptions to FIX THE BUGS!!!
I don't understand the negative comparison here. Both Microsoft and Ext JS release free updates and bug fixes to their products. Microsoft release every month on Patch Tuesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Tuesday). The next Ext release is set for this month (http://www.extjs.com/products/extjs/roadmap.php).

[TizianoF]

I don't understand the negative comparison here. Both Microsoft and Ext JS release free updates and bug fixes to their products. Microsoft release every month on Patch Tuesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Tuesday). The next Ext release is set for this month (http://www.extjs.com/products/extjs/roadmap.php).

There's a big difference.

ExtJS will never releases all the known bug fixes, i.e. for version 3.0.

3.0.3 will still miss the bug fixes between version 3.0.3 and 3.1.0, while 3.1.0 will have new bugs due to the new features.

And I'd like to have a roadmap for version 2, any chance to get a bug fix release as i.e. accordion panel is completely not working on version 2.3 (released months ago)?

[jay@moduscreate.com]

I don't understand the negative comparison here. Both Microsoft and Ext JS release free updates and bug fixes to their products. Microsoft release every month on Patch Tuesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Tuesday). The next Ext release is set for this month (http://www.extjs.com/products/extjs/roadmap.php).

Some people just love to ride the anti-microsoft train.

[iagui]

I don't understand the negative comparison here. Both Microsoft and Ext JS release free updates and bug fixes to their products. Microsoft release every month on Patch Tuesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Tuesday). The next Ext release is set for this month (http://www.extjs.com/products/extjs/roadmap.php).

They have fixed the bugs long time ago, and with release 3.1 there will be a lot of new bugs which won't get fixed unless you pay the subscription.

The release that just fixes the bugs without introducing new ones will only be available by PAYING.

This is very wrong, if they want to get money with ext code, then change the license from GPL to a commercial one and sell the main product and give the fixes for free like everyone does.

The comparision with microsoft is not about the charge for the fixes, its about the release of crappy software, which as I said is the path Ext is going with this attitude.

I know i can choose which library to work with. But i was planning to make a commercial product and to purchase a commercial Ext license. I've learned how to work with them and understood the code, so i wont need a subscription for support. But now i see the fixes are only for subscribers i'll have to move to another library and that makes me angry (suspiciously theres no angry emoticon).

Btw, theres has a deplorable attitude of deleting post and closing topics where people talks about things that the Ext Team doesn't want to talk about.

[jburnhams]

The release that just fixes the bugs without introducing new ones will only be available by PAYING.
This is incorrect. Abe has stated (http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=404573#post404573) that when 3.1 is released, all the bug fix builds up until then (such as 3.0.3 or 3.0.4) will also be released. Users with a support subscription get advance access to bug fixes, not exclusive access.

[iagui]

This is incorrect. Abe has stated (http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=404573#post404573) that when 3.1 is released, all the bug fix builds up until then (such as 3.0.3 or 3.0.4) will also be released. Users with a support subscription get advance access to bug fixes, not exclusive access.

Again with the 3.1...

The 3.1 will have new bugs!
And guess what... to get the fixes for those bugs, and ONLY the fixes without NEW bugs, you'll have to pay.

Abe has stated "that community support will only be offered on the latest minor releases", this means, "if you don't pay, you won't be up to date with fixes", and ends with a perverse "If 3.1 is not a substantially improved product over 3.0.x then we are not doing our jobs. That is our commitment to you."

If they are really committed to the comunity, they would release the BUG FIXES to everyone at same time, instead of selling them to subscriptors.

Unstable versions = free
Stable versions = pay subscription

This is all about profit.

[TizianoF]

This is incorrect. Abe has stated (http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=404573#post404573) that when 3.1 is released, all the bug fix builds up until then (such as 3.0.3 or 3.0.4) will also be released. Users with a support subscription get advance access to bug fixes, not exclusive access.

So there will be a new 3.0.X release with all the bugs fixed included in 3.1 and not shipped in 3.0.3? Abe has not stated this...

[joeri]

iagui, TizianoF:
Read jburnham's link, Abe has definitely stated that 3.0.3 will be released to the public at the same time 3.1 is. The question is about how long it takes bugfixes to get released, not whether they get released.

[TizianoF]

iagui, TizianoF:
Read jburnham's link, Abe has definitely stated that 3.0.3 will be released to the public at the same time 3.1 is. The question is about how long it takes bugfixes to get released, not whether they get released.

Please read again Abe's post:

"All of the support releases that lead up to 3.1 will be available".

He has not written that the latest 3.0.X support release will have the same bug fixes that you'll find in 3.1.0

[iagui]

iagui, TizianoF:
Read jburnham's link, Abe has definitely stated that 3.0.3 will be released to the public at the same time 3.1 is. The question is about how long it takes bugfixes to get released, not whether they get released.

Abe haven't stated that, he stated that all fixed will be INCLUDED in 3.1 becuase they are cumulative, there won't be a release with all the fixes realesed separated from 3.1.

This means that bug fixes releases will be EXCLUSIVE for subscriptors.

With minor releases like 3.1 new bugs will be introduced, so as I've said before:

Unstable versions = Free for all
Stable versions = Exclusive for subscriptors

[joeri]

TizianoF, iagui, you're arguing opposite ends.

Abe said this:

All of the support releases that lead up to 3.1 will be available. If there's a 3.0.4 we will release that as well.

What this means to me is this:
- When 3.1 is released to the public, all the 3.0.x releases will be released to the public as well.
- This temporarily brings the level of access to bugfixes to the same level as for support subscribers, because support subscribers don't have access to a global list of hotfixes, they only get the patch releases, and the public releases (and ofcourse svn access, but getting a fix out of that is painful).

[TizianoF]

TizianoF, iagui, you're arguing opposite ends.

Abe said this:


What this means to me is this:
- When 3.1 is released to the public, all the 3.0.x releases will be released to the public as well.

This doesn't mean that 3.1.0 will have the same fixes included in the latest 3.0.X release. Instead 3.1.0 will have new fixes not included in any 3.0.X release.

So there won't be anymore a stable version unless you pay.

[iagui]

As i quoted him before:



Keep in mind, that community support will only be offered on the latest minor releases. Users reporting bugs on 3.0.1- 3.0.4 will need to reproduce them in 3.1.

This means, bugfix releases will be available for SUSCRIBERS ONLY

I don't know what are you understanding, but TizianoF and Me are arguing exactly the same thing.

And even if they release the fix versions separated from the minor release, its not a good thing to offer bug fixes to suscribers only.

Suscribers should get things like new themes or pre-release of new components, instead of fixes for things released to the community that aren't working as they're supposed to...
This is very mediocre!


Edit: You know what?
Any suscriber could get thet 3.0.3 bugfix release and publish it, since its GPL you can publish ALL the source under the GPL licence with a tiny sample page.

So, if any subscriber could publish the 3.0.3 release with a GPL application/demo/etc, and they MUST publish the 3.0.3 release if they want to make something GPL.

Whats the point on releasing it in a private way???

The bugfix release MUST be published, or else the Ext with that bugfix applied won't be a legal GPL.

[Jubei]

Timely bug fixes for a commercial license is pretty standard and is not typically part of a support agreement. It is implied by purchasing software.

I do agree that complaining about it is probably not going to do much because the decision to have paid support for timely bug fix is financially motivated and guaranteed to be a source of revenue if there are many annoying but not show stopping bugs.

This I believe is geared towards large companies using the toolkit because I don't know of any large company that would purchase a license without support for bug fixes. So really, this impacts the smaller folks who may not initially have the extra money to pay for a timely bug fix.

I suspect that if this doesn't lead to more revenue for ExtJS, they will likely change their policy on that. Until then, I am sticking with it, but I can't see purchasing any more license/upgrades at the next major release.

~o)

[joeri]

TizianoF: I don't know what magic source of bugfixes you think subscribers get, but we don't get any extra bugfixes beyond the patch releases that will be released together with 3.1. Well, unless you mean svn access.

Iagui: community support means that the bugs you report in the bugs forum must be reproducible on the latest release.

[iagui]

Iagui: community support means that the bugs you report in the bugs forum must be reproducible on the latest release.

:-/
What are you talking about???

Please, stay in topic, the subject here is about non GPL bugfix releases.

Its ok if subscriptors have timely bug fix updates, but they have to make the bug fixes available for everyone at some point, without releasing another version, or else there won't be a stable GPL version.

I agree with Jubei about nobody purchasing next major release licenses, since it would be pointless without a subscription.

[vmorale4]

As i quoted him before:
Edit: You know what?
Any suscriber could get thet 3.0.3 bugfix release and publish it, since its GPL you can publish ALL the source under the GPL licence with a tiny sample page.

So, if any subscriber could publish the 3.0.3 release with a GPL application/demo/etc, and they MUST publish the 3.0.3 release if they want to make something GPL.

Whats the point on releasing it in a private way???

The bugfix release MUST be published, or else the Ext with that bugfix applied won't be a legal GPL.

That's a very good point! any kind subscription-holders out there? B)

Perhaps someone could setup a Google Code project?

Edit: It looks like somebody already did this!
http://code.google.com/p/extjs-public/

however, it hasn't been updated in quite some time....:-?

[aw1zard2]

I've always hated the back and forth arguments going on.

The issues are plain and simple if you spent as much time writing in these forums as you did fixing your bugs or searching for work-arounds with bugs already found you would have nothing to complain about.

Most of the bugs I find have work-arounds posted just have to dig for them. If not someone has hit it before so send them a pm about it. So please stop the crying and get back to coding please this is getting quite annoying.

I respect the license model in place and I'm not a svn user.

[Jubei]

I've always hated the back and forth arguments going on.

The issues are plain and simple if you spent as much time writing in these forums as you did fixing your bugs or searching for work-arounds with bugs already found you would have nothing to complain about.

Most of the bugs I find have work-arounds posted just have to dig for them. If not someone has hit it before so send them a pm about it. So please stop the crying and get back to coding please this is getting quite annoying.

I respect the license model in place and I'm not a svn user.

You do realize that thread reading is optional? If it bothers you...why read it...and worse yet...add a comment that adds no real value all while missing the original point? :-?

I am sure that all of us could FIX the bugs ourselves...but that isn't really what is expected when you buy a commercial license now is it?

[iagui]

I've always hated the back and forth arguments going on.

The issues are plain and simple if you spent as much time writing in these forums as you did fixing your bugs or searching for work-arounds with bugs already found you would have nothing to complain about.

Most of the bugs I find have work-arounds posted just have to dig for them. If not someone has hit it before so send them a pm about it. So please stop the crying and get back to coding please this is getting quite annoying.

I respect the license model in place and I'm not a svn user.

If the discussion annoys you, simply don't read it, go back to your coding.

Obviously I have made my own workarounds for those bugs, but that's not the point here (although making workarounds is double work, because after a minor release you have to review al the bugfixes you've made to work with the new version, or remove them).

I also respect the license model, but a release like 3.0.3 doesn't fit in the GPL model.

[aw1zard2]

You mean GPL+commercial+support license model right?

:D

[SonicBog]

I suspect that if ExtJS was a binary toolkit rather than Javascript, those in favour of waiting for infrequent Minor releases for bug fixes as opposed to frequent bug fix releases would have a different tune. The fact that ExtJS is javascripts gives you the opportunity to work around a problem (that you should not have to) where as a binary gives you no choice but to wait for a bug fix.

If you are forced to wait, then you expect the fixes to roll out quickly.
The fact that you can get into ExtJS to work around a problem does not mean that this is what we should have to do to get a component working. I am sure that my boss will ask ExtJS for some money when I log the fact that I have spent x amount of time fixing up ExtJS code to work around a problem as the next minor update with functionality and bug fixes is not due for several more months (future example).

He would also query my request for support when I tell him it is required in order to get the bug fix releases before the minor feature releases.

[MartiCode]

In the end the argument is pretty simple: you buy a software, you should be entitled to have it delivered bug-free, or at least have fixes for known bugs be released as soon as possible and at no extra cost.

From what I understand someone who buys a license even today will still only get 3.0.0, a version that is obselete and known to have bugs.

[mschwartz]

http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83652

The developer releases are not well tested against all the programming the community here does with the library. It may not at all be what you expect to have access to these things. My experience is that something I wanted fixed was fixed in svn, but the state of the rest of the code, since it's in development for 3.1 release, actually regressed major sections of my application.

I found the company to be rigorous in how they released 3.0.0. They produced release candidates and let everyone try it out. They were quite open to looking into every bug report and fixed most things. They slipped the shipping date because it wasn't ready enough.

Let's give them some credit, eh?

[mw-flow]

Abe, I say to you in the friendliest possible way that your customers are speaking. You need to find a different business-model. Your product is good: it deserves the best. Without making light of the legitimate concerns that keep you up at night, "find something that truly works." Your product deserves that.

No reply is needed.

+1

[mw-flow]

To the extent that there are bugs, we fix them, test the fix, and incorporate them for our community and customers in the form of a minor release.

And that minor release will contain NEW BUGS as it will have NEW FEATURES. I can't imagine that is hard to understand.


If there is a need to access SVN and the SVN commit releases (patch releases) we have support subscriptions.

I don't need SUPPORT, i want the most current code. I paid for it by paying for a license of a library that is GPL(!).

[TizianoF]

And that minor release will contain NEW BUGS as it will have NEW FEATURES. That's not so hard to understand, even for someone with the word "management" in his job title.



I don't need SUPPORT, i want the most current code. I paid for it by paying for a license of a library that is GPL(!).

As we thought, Ext 3.1 released with all the bug fixed in 3.0.3 and no 3.0.4 version for those not interested in the new 3.1 features (that obviously will add new bugs).

So, no stable version if you don't buy the support (but you buy the license)

really really bad ext!

p.s. are 2.x version customers forgotten? there are huge open bugs in 2.3 (i.e. accordion panel not working) but no new releases since last spring.

[httpdotcom]

p.s. are 2.x version customers forgotten? there are huge open bugs in 2.3 (i.e. accordion panel not working) but no new releases since last spring.

There are no "forks" in the development tree for ExtJS. 3.0 was the upgrade path for 2.3, and 3.1...and so on.

Yes, there are no truly stable releases, as each release, to everyone without a support contract, introduces new complexities.

[Mike Robinson]

You might think that "having access to the 'bleeding edge'" is a good thing. Quite frankly, I do not.

My suggestion is: Take any public release and, two or three months after its first public release,bring it in for "evaluation." To see if it's ready. If it is, then expect to be supporting it yourself, on your own nickel. More or less as you would do for any other "shareware." (If the package appears to require "support it yourself" at all, don't use the durn thing at all.)

I think that it is reasonable with most software to assume that there will be a slew of problems that can only be found "in the field." Well, let the people who are paying for the privilege of being beta-testers do the dirty work for you: after all, if you found the same bug, you'd be ignored. Therefore, stay well clear of the bleeding edge. There are many sharp-edged surfaces in that fell region...

And lest you think I'm "picking on" ExtJS here... when the 3.0 OS for my iPhone came out, I calmly waited ... still am ... and so far it's up to (I think) 3.03. When it goes a month or two without a version-bump, I'll consider it stable and install it. Ditto "Snow Leopard." Ain't no value in my book for grabbing a DVD too-soon, when the product that I buy several months later will contain bug-fixes that I'll never see if I will but bide my time. (Do check the label on the bottom of the box.) The process of software-development is such that there will be a substantial number of errors in any new software, and that the number and severity of errors will decline sharply at first. (It's actually safe to assume, I find, that "x.y.0" software will contain so many errors as to be, in effect, unusable. Despite the earnest professional effort of everyone concerned.)

"Software like fine wine: let it age."