Thanks, Red Gate
-
They might not have got the halo effect they were hoping for with the free version; but they have gotten a forked tail, pitchfork, and horns effect by pulling the plug on it. There is exactly zero chance I will ever lobby for buying a redgate product in the future; and a 100% chance I will lobby against efforts by any co-workers to do so.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
I'm with you on that. Lutz was able to provide this software free of charge for a long time, now some Oracle wannabe company does that? No way I will support that. I prefer supporting Sun wannabe comanpanies than this kind of atrocity. It's good that this will stimulate me to better understand IL code when I need to figure out stuff going on the .net framework. And perhaps, build my own disassembler.
-
Reflector, our beloved Reflector, will never be free again. From version 7 on, you'll have to dish out 35$. I don't know if it's a repost; search didn't produce results. Feels wrong. X|
Uh... Do you develop software for a living? Do you work for free? This is the last place I'd expect to hear complaints about wanting to get paid for work done. Jeesh. $35 is pretty cheap for a useful tool. If it's not useful, don't use it.
Steve Tahan Savannah River Site Aiken, SC
-
That's strange. I guess it's AV or "smart filter" complains. The RunAsDate's author warns that some AV solutions mark the EXE as a malware which it's not. They do that for only reason IMHO that the tool hooks Win32 API functions and is not on the whitelist and not signed. Anyway I've used it for years without a hitch, of course, YMMV.
-
I'm with you on that. Lutz was able to provide this software free of charge for a long time, now some Oracle wannabe company does that? No way I will support that. I prefer supporting Sun wannabe comanpanies than this kind of atrocity. It's good that this will stimulate me to better understand IL code when I need to figure out stuff going on the .net framework. And perhaps, build my own disassembler.
One of the reasons Lutz sold Reflector was because he was NOT able to maintain Reflector anymore. It had grown beyond his ability to keep up with it.
I'm not a player, I just code a lot! Alex Dresko
-
One of the reasons Lutz sold Reflector was because he was NOT able to maintain Reflector anymore. It had grown beyond his ability to keep up with it.
I'm not a player, I just code a lot! Alex Dresko
I can be totally wrong but I disagree. When the app was his yet, really, it worked the same way it works today and I never needed a patch and never ran into an issue. He could've kept the reflector that way, IMHO, he didn't even have to dedicate himself to that project anymore, it was good as it was and as it is. He might have gotten carried away by requests and support, but as a free application he didn't have to commit to any of that. Now, I beleive the real reason is money. I beleive he's 100% right and I'd do the same if I could be paid for some hard work that provides a high quality software. As you said it, he "sold" it and he earned it. It's too bad we now have to pay. I was hoping that red-gate would concentrate on selling the extensions only, which are really useful, but not mandatory.
-
That's dumb. $35 is cheap.
I'm not a player, I just code a lot! Alex Dresko
35 USD would be fair, but the Redgate purchase page says 69 EUR (~94 USD) for a license without upgrades and support. This is quite expensive for a tool which have seen only minor improvements in the last years. A full version of ReSharper cost 176 EUR (not to mention their special offers) and to be honest, ReSharper is more than four times as much worth than Reflector (at least from my point of view).
-
I can be totally wrong but I disagree. When the app was his yet, really, it worked the same way it works today and I never needed a patch and never ran into an issue. He could've kept the reflector that way, IMHO, he didn't even have to dedicate himself to that project anymore, it was good as it was and as it is. He might have gotten carried away by requests and support, but as a free application he didn't have to commit to any of that. Now, I beleive the real reason is money. I beleive he's 100% right and I'd do the same if I could be paid for some hard work that provides a high quality software. As you said it, he "sold" it and he earned it. It's too bad we now have to pay. I was hoping that red-gate would concentrate on selling the extensions only, which are really useful, but not mandatory.
The source of my comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKnEjiSGZLA[^]
I'm not a player, I just code a lot! Alex Dresko
-
The source of my comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKnEjiSGZLA[^]
I'm not a player, I just code a lot! Alex Dresko
I've seen that, but that's red-gate speaking. They don't speak for Lutz. If I hear from him that it was more about maintainabilty than for the money, than I'll agree with you.
-
Uh... Do you develop software for a living? Do you work for free? This is the last place I'd expect to hear complaints about wanting to get paid for work done. Jeesh. $35 is pretty cheap for a useful tool. If it's not useful, don't use it.
Steve Tahan Savannah River Site Aiken, SC
$35 is pretty cheap for a useful tool, but not for a free tool. I don't have a problem with them charging for the new version; I do have a problem with them telling me I can't continue to use the old version because "we cn haz munny nao?"
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Reflector, our beloved Reflector, will never be free again. From version 7 on, you'll have to dish out 35$. I don't know if it's a repost; search didn't produce results. Feels wrong. X|
Not sure if anyone else posted this yet, but according to this blog post: reflections-on-recent-news[^] JetBrains is hinting at the fact that they are working on a 'Reflector' replacement that will be included in ReSharper. :cool: Of course, ReSharper isn't free either, but if you already have it, it's one less thing to buy... I'm pretty happy about it! :-D
-
From the article: "We were originally working on the assumption that the huge volumes of traffic Reflector would bring to our website would mean users would stop and look around our other tools. It turns out that this wasn’t the case." Well, *I* did what they thought everyone would do, and after looking around at their other tools, I decided that I simply can't justify the expense of buying their stuff for personal use. I think THAT is what happened in the case of a lot of other people too.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I decided that I simply can't justify the expense of buying their stuff for personal use
Same is true of me. I use their tools at work - the company buys them. I buy products for my personal use after consideration of the cost and benefit. Theirs failed that comparison.
-
OMG I AM out of milk!
-
I understand your anger at losing a valueable tool, and I understand that $35 have different weight in different places. Still, it would be healthy to accept that when the free lunch is over, you should rather remember the good times had than sit moping. Imagine there would never have been a Reflector to begin with. From the Red Gate announcement in 2008: Our commitment is to maintain an amazing free tool (source[^]) Now, I know that's not all that's been said, and you can interpret it in different ways, but there's no promise of Reflector remaining free for all time, and I doubt Red Gate would have made such a statement officially. The time bomb: My point is that Reflector never was "perpetually yours" to begin with. Besides, if you want to maintain only one version, you just do, there's no need for a time bomb. Lutz never opted to make reflector open source, he got paid by Red Gate ( they flew out a guy to meet Lutz to close the deal[^], so I guess it wasn't just peanuts). Lutz deserves what he got (the outcry of the .NET community is proof enough for me), and Red Gate deserves their moneys for maintaining Reflector for over two years. $35 is an incredible fair price for a developer tool.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchypeterchen wrote:
$35 is an incredible fair price for a developer tool.
$35 is an incredible price for an IDE. Or a compiler. Those are tools that one might use every day and all day long. For a tool that I use once a month for 15 minutes or less not so much. In comparison I have opted to buy TextPad. Because I use it extensively. The single user cost for that is $27. I would pay more for it. In comparison the other RedGate tools are simply not cost effective for personal use for the actual value that I personally receive from them.
-
They have to make a living, what would you sugggest?
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
Uh... Do you develop software for a living? Do you work for free? This is the last place I'd expect to hear complaints about wanting to get paid for work done. Jeesh. $35 is pretty cheap for a useful tool. If it's not useful, don't use it.
Steve Tahan Savannah River Site Aiken, SC
sgtahan wrote:
$35 is pretty cheap for a useful tool.
TextPad is a useful tool that I use every day for hours. It is only $27 for a single user license. That is "pretty cheap". $35 for a tool that I use no more than once a month for less than 15 minutes is not even close to cheap.
-
I understand your anger at losing a valueable tool, and I understand that $35 have different weight in different places. Still, it would be healthy to accept that when the free lunch is over, you should rather remember the good times had than sit moping. Imagine there would never have been a Reflector to begin with. From the Red Gate announcement in 2008: Our commitment is to maintain an amazing free tool (source[^]) Now, I know that's not all that's been said, and you can interpret it in different ways, but there's no promise of Reflector remaining free for all time, and I doubt Red Gate would have made such a statement officially. The time bomb: My point is that Reflector never was "perpetually yours" to begin with. Besides, if you want to maintain only one version, you just do, there's no need for a time bomb. Lutz never opted to make reflector open source, he got paid by Red Gate ( they flew out a guy to meet Lutz to close the deal[^], so I guess it wasn't just peanuts). Lutz deserves what he got (the outcry of the .NET community is proof enough for me), and Red Gate deserves their moneys for maintaining Reflector for over two years. $35 is an incredible fair price for a developer tool.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchyI agree with most of what you said. However, Red Gate *did* indeed promise to keep it free forever. Lutz certainly did deserve whatever he got. More power to him. And, BTW, I'm not angry, just disappointed and disillusioned.
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"
-
:sigh: I knew it would happen... there goes one of the most useful free utilities ever written for the .NET platform... Darn you Red Gate :mad: Maybe some of us here could get together and write something to replace it. It would be challenging but rewarding if we managed it. I've generated IL plenty of times before when DynamicMethod was the only dynamic code generation method in .NET. Reverse engineering would be harder but obviously it's possible.
I second this. Instead of whining we (or some subset of "we") should just write a new, shiny metal, free, open-source tool. We might call it ".NetScope", "BlackGateReflektor" or something like this. I'm sure someone can also come up with a cooler name.