| To: | Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey |
| From: | Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com> |
| Reply-to: | Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com>, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com> |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:34:57 -0400 |
| List-post: | <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com> |
Bill Ames writes... > I would not mind paying for new firmware that increased performance or > functionality. However I do not feel obligated to pay for "bug" fixes. Sometimes the distinction between bugs and the lack of an important feature is obvious. But not always. That's where published functional requirements would provide clarity. New requirement = new feature. An existing requirement that was claimed to have been fulfilled but not so = bug. Rick, KR9D _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey, Rick Denney |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey, K5XS |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey, Bill Ames |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey, Ken Brown |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |