Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
R. VanDyke wrote:
I find it both amazing and sad that some still cling to the fantasy that Adobe is going to respond to the emotional pleas of a relative handful of OS-X users by investing in a parallel development team for a product that's so clearly on its last legs.
Your metaphor places the blame on natural aging, which living things can patch, for a while, but in the end cannot avoid.
FrameMaker has been allowed to age, but this aging is the fault of Adobe, not the application. There is no universal, unavoidable natural aging process of software that must push users to move to something else. If an application works well, it can be adjusted to move along with changes in technology. There is no reason why an application that provides a particular service cannot survive ... well, indeed, forever? Think of it like this: I need to produce literature with running heads, lists, cross-references, and so on, and not until the day when we have no need for those things will there any good reason to believe that FrameMaker must die. There could be competitors and other ways to accomplish those needs, but that's not the point and none of those force the death of an application.
But for an application to live and thrive it must be properly maintained. The day Adobe bought Frame they should have began chunking up the code to allow for cross-platform use and ease of maintenance, but instead they did as you said: They troweled makeup over the cracks and put on some bright red lipstick, took us on a date, then dumped us on the side of the road to walk home. If the code was such a mess that a ground-up rewrite was needed, then so be it. For a product that size it would have ended up being one of the cheaper application development cycles in history. Why? Because in development, just designing the darn thing -- decided what it's going to do -- consumes a lot of time and money, and that part was done, as were the logic algorithms.
I don't know what drives Adobe into thinking that the Mac and Linux community don't need and won't buy a product like FrameMaker.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied