Re: Raining Data's Dream World

On Apr 12, 12:02=A0pm, "Ron Walenciak" <ron.walenc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Just in passing, I recently had a Data General Business Basic client
limpi=
ng
> along from the early 90's. Since I've been working in D3 for various
clien=
ts
> for the past 5 years I wanted to use D3/Linux to replace their system
> (small, 5-user company, no IT people there).
>
> I approached Raining Data and they were not interested in making me a
> reseller. They were looking for a commitment to sell multiple systems
per
> year (well, it's possible that could happen, and I could have
"stretched"
> the truth and said I'm out there actively selling this vertical, but I
> didn't have the time or patience or need to fight for it.) =A0They just
do=
n't
> seem to want to encourage us to develop on their systems!
>
> The end result is that I probably won't bother with trying to sell other
> systems for Raining Data. I doubt that I would even develop something in
D=
3
> in the future although I could probably arrange to use my client's
system =
to
> do so.
>
> <hits himself in the head> Damn.... I could have had a QM !!!
>
> :)
>
> Ron Walenciak
> Software Design Group, Inc.
>

I wonder just how many consultant types that have a significant
knowledge of D3, are moving towards using QM.

I'm under the understanding that as a developer QM provides a 4 user
version free of charge.  With the options to be able to tweak the
flavour of QM towards various different platforms, it makes moving to
QM a viable choice.

QM may not have the installed seats yet, but me thinks that the tide
be turning in favour of them.  OR, at least a significant number of
consultants are moving away from the Raining Data offerings.  Bigger
fish may stay the course, but the smaller fish don't like the taste of
the D3 offerings.

Dale