🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DOWDING.91Mar13174830@palm.ai.sri.com>, dowding@ai.sri.com (John Dowding) writes:
> In article <WEISS.91Mar13133515@toucan.lcs.mit.edu> weiss@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Paul G. Weiss) writes:

>    This forum is not and should not become a substitute for direct
>    communication with Prolog vendors regarding product features and
>    technical support.  

> I think that it is well within the charter of this newsgroup to report
> bugs and significant complaints about the major Prolog products.  

I would certainly agree that it is appropriate to complain here if you
are having trouble with a company.  But the *FIRST* place to go with a
bug report is the company responsible.  Yes, let's have people telling
each other about the problems they are having, but be fair to yourself,
go to the company FIRST.  When I was working at Quintus, I found that
some people posting bug reports about QP here not only hadn't seen fit
to tell Quintus (despite QP printing out the phone number every time),
they were at a site that had a fully-paid-up maintenance contract!  So
DO send bug reports *FIRST* to the vendor, you may already have paid
for service, and you may get help even if you haven't paid.

> Whether a new user is considering a software purchase, or an
> experienced programmer is tracking down problems with their current
> implementation, knowledge of known bugs and major shortcomings would
> be extremely helpful.

Again, it is worth going to the vendor FIRST.  If you go to the net
you will get some mix of (accurate information, ravings from idiots,
disinformation from other vendors).  If the vendor refuses to give
you the information you need, then fall back on the net as an act of
desperation.  If a new user is considering a purchase, some companies
have lists of customers who are willing to tell other people about
their experience with the product, so again it is worth going to the
vendor first.

-- 
The purpose of advertising is to destroy the freedom of the market.