support for 5.0 once 5.6 is out

[Fairlight]

I'd like to ask publicly if anyone knows (or if Bud or Bill would venture)
what the support policy for 5.0 users will be once 5.6 is out the door.

I'm under the impression, given certain comments about the duration of the
5.0 lifetime and lack of revenue stemming from it, it seems like 5.0 may
possibly be abandoned.  Given what happened to 4.8 users, where it's still
the second-last major version and they can't get the latest update they're
entitled to, I think it would be a solid point of concern for current (and
especially newly adopted) 5.0 users/sites inasfar as where they'll stand
with recourse as pertains to bugs.

I quote from a transcript of the meeting with Bud:

"Probably as soon as we get 5.6 out the door, we're going back and catch up
a lot of what we call bugs and try to catch up everything else.  We needed
to get 5.6 out because that is going to be an upgrade, and that will be a
price associated with it.  That will no longer be a free upgrade.  5.14
was the end of the free upgrade prices.  We haven't discussed how we're
going to do some of the bugs in 14 yet, but 5.6, we simply need to get that
product out so that we have some income coming in.  It's been a number of
years now since we've been into the 5.0 mode, and it's just something we
have to do to get going."  --Bud Henschen

So they're holding off on bug fixes until they release the new 5.6.  This
makes no mention of back-porting fixes to 5.0.  In fact, it seems far more
likely that, as with fpcgi v1 vs v2, fixes may be held for ransom.  The
difference being that some of those were security related, which made it
all the more galling to those concerned.

I'm curious if anyone has heard more, or if someone's willing to make an
official statement on what will happen.  I don't think telling a customer,
"They don't know what they're going to do, they haven't even discussed it,"
is acceptable.  It's not "simply" getting 5.6 out.  These ramifications for
current users of the current line should be fully and completely set in
stone before 5.6 is released, IMNSHO.

It would be far too easy to imagine the following exchange at fP-Tech: 

"Heck, we never discussed it.  What should we do?"  

"Well, it makes a good revenue source, fixing our own bugs.  Okay, 5.0 is
now unsupported.  They -must- upgrade, even for bug-fixes.  We don't want
to maintain two trees anyway."

The lack of separation between bug-fix patchlevels and addition of new
features is a sore point of contention.  I'd like to see it officially
addressed and remedied for all those people that have gotten the short end
in the past.  It wasn't remedied as late as fpcgi v2's release.  I'm
wondering if the same policy will extend, or if it will be changed.

Bug-fixes should be back-ported to at least one major patchlevel.  No new
features should be back-ported.  That's how the rest of the world does
development, by and large.  I think it's safe to say it would make a fair
model to follow.

Actually, the lack of separation is what kept them from having revenue from
newer releases for the last five years or so--they released new features in
what should have been bug-fix patchlevels, and didn't charge for the new
features because bug-fixes were included.  It's poor version management.
Now they want to charge, but it -seems- like they may overlook the bugs in
5.0 and just demand you upgrade.  That's where I think a little
clarification is in order, if someone wouldn't mind.

mark->
-- 
Fairlight->   ||| "The really big criminals never    | Fairlight Consulting
  __/\__      ||| break laws.  They make them."  --  |
 <__<>__>     ||| James P. Hogan, "The Anguished     | http://www.fairlite.com
    \/        ||| Dawn"                              | info at fairlite.com