Steve,
>
> I can imagine several ways MC corp could have solved their problem
> differently. I would hope that "stand-alone" MC stacks would never be
> subject to "expiration". Expiration should be aimed at developers
> (not end-users) since the developers are the people most likely to
> submit bug reports. At the very least, I would expect a warning to be
> displayed by all engines containing time-bombs (eg. when a beta engine
> is started it says "WARNING: This MetaCard engine (1.4B2) will expire
> on November 1, 1994").
>
> I am angry because of the bad-will the use of MC may have caused
> between my company and one of our customers. The implications of
> releasing a product that suddenly fails to execute based upon the
> calendar date are abhorant.
>
> Is anyone else as disturbed as I am?
>
It does concern me if "engines" with self-destruct mechanisms do not
advertise this fact at launch. I guess I can see some reasons for having
a no-longer-functions trigger in an engine because I know that MC support
has received reports of bugs, some from me, that had been fixed in a more
current release that I was using at the time. However, I agree that there
should be some way that the developer and customer would know about this.
Sincerely,
Clark Parsons
clarkp@fc.hp.com