🚀 go-pugleaf

[ Beware, this is an argumentative tangent to the original topic ]

> At one point I think 
> Dov put in hit 2 cents to say that the change would require a rewrite of 
> almost the entire program.

That's quite possible, and we hardly want that to be done in a rush...
However, Adobe would have been stupid to buy FrameMaker (in 1995) without
having investigated the state of the code first, unless their original
intent was to kill the software immediately (which I don't believe).
Therefore, Adobe knew very early on how much work it would take to
develop the software further, or to redesign it to be more modern or
to conform to the "Adobe style" of software. Assuming that this would
be a very extensive task, you basically have the following options:

* Put the software in "maintenance mode", that is, maintain and support
  it, but do not add or correct features. This very nearly happened in
  1998, according to more than one internal source I have.

* Do the best you can with the code, add a few features and whistles that
  don't break anything, but do not redesign the software or make any large
  development efforts. This is the current state of affairs, even though
  Adobe would never admit it. Instead, "FrameMaker is alive and well", but
  you'll never see more than a fraction of any user requests implemented.
  Adobe will possibly develop the XML support further, but the rest of the
  features will basically be left as is.

* Realize the potential of FrameMaker, look beyond one or two years ahead
  in time and short-sighted profit demands, and start developing a long-term
  plan to modernize the software and its code, thus building a platform for
  better integration with other Adobe software, for implementing new features
  and for correcting bugs and badly designed features. Combined with a
  marketing effort that actually has a focus of some kind, this could become
  a Word and Ventura killer (for long documents, technical publishing, etc).

The last option is what Adobe should have done from the start, but it's too
late now. The "powers" at Adobe (I refer to them as "bean counters") have
never been able to figure out what FM is for or why Adobe should invest in
its development. Instead, they are content with having a software with many
loyal customers and a few very large license holders, that will continue to
buy upgrades and keep FrameMaker profitable (for the time being).

Have you ever wondered why FM has never been part of any of the Adobe
software "collections", or why it's hardly ever mentioned when other Adobe
software is marketed? It's not because FrameMaker wouldn't "fit" or has 
"a different customer base", it's mainly because Adobe hasn't been able to
decide what direction FM should have, and putting it together with other
Adobe software would immediately expose the age and alleged "weirdness" of
FM, that Adobe hasn't done anything about in the SEVEN years they have had
access to the code.

I have the deepest respect for Dov Isaacs, but he tends to mock with Apple
and Mac users, saying "Think different" means "Think incompatible". The
irony is that the same type of criticism can be made for Adobe's mistreatment
of FrameMaker (for which Dov is not responsible, of course).

Ah, I feel much better now. BTW, I'm currently unemployed; do you know of
any software company that would be interested? ;-)


-- 
/Thomas Michanek, FrameMaker/UNIX/MIF expert
mailto:Thomas.Michanek@telia.com
http://go.to/framers/