It’s just not worth the hassle
I’m sure there’d be some push back about “oh but those licenses you only got because you worked here so they’re not really yours” or something
And FWIW I dont think, given the current licensing scheme, that it really matters as there’s no point in “upgrading” an existing license
1 Like
Do those of you who got banned know why you did?
Norman´s ban is the only one I noticed (and only because Markus wrote about it), never saw any other person banned in public (in recent years).
Julen
Someone asked for a thread to be locked that really didn’t need locking, a moderator obliged, so I send both a sarcastic “Well done.” message - so I got banned for 4 weeks for “harassment” (pfft - snowflakes! An absolute non-event by German standards) … which they forgot about so it turned into a 1,000 year ban when they moved to a new forum.
Was upset that Dave got 2,000 years, so tried my best to top that but they didn’t play ball 
2 Likes
I noticed that a few days/weeks ago, you did your best, don’t be too hard on yourself.
I was banned for LIFE, because I pointed out publicly how arrogant and egotistical Geoff is. Not to mention a lier (saying things one day, and later denying he ever had… while convientley deleted the posts to cover up the act)
I guess your ban didn’t come as a surprise then 
No… and he has consistently exhibiited these behaviours since…
Including (recently) to delete ALL posts by a currently non-banned user, who is bringing up legit issues, but “making a negative contribution” to the forum
Sorry boys and girls, it isn’t all 
Who?
not my place to say
Someone, anonymous, said it was for ad-hominem attacks and I forget what else
It was poignantly amusing reading the Xojo newbie in that discussion telling the old guys that Xojo is great and you just need to wait awhile for the missing features and bugfixes
1 Like
2018 keynote @ 46:32
Slide
99% compatible with existing projects
Geoff speaking (I think I have transcribed this accurately)
if you’re wondering am I going to have to rewrite my project in this new framework no you wont have to you might have to make a minor change here or there
1 Like
And his reply on TOF was somewhat overly specific, I think. Continuation of Web 1.0 was not the point in question. But yes, that was what he was saying too, and that may have been officially corrected (although I don’t know why, but anyway …)
He did not answer the broken promise of easy upgradability. But sigh – should I dare to get banned too?
Doesn’t this reply to that question?
You’re correct that in 2018 we believed that we could actually support both the old and new web frameworks within the same project. That turned out to not be the case and in 2019 at XDC we were exceedingly clear about that. We said we would not be supporting API 1.0 (that the new Web Framework would be API 2.0 only) and that while we would be importing projects, we would not be converting code because we have found in the past that unless you do it nearly 100% perfectly, it’s better to not do it at all.
You may or may not agree or believe it, but he gave an answer.
1 Like
Its just a new different answer than what was given before
Hence why people had expected they would not have a huge amount of work to move from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0
if you’re wondering am I going to have to rewrite my project in this new framework no you wont have to you might have to make a minor change here or there
The reality is, even as geoff & other have said is that you will have to do a lot of reworking and that staying on an older version may be a better course of action
For some using an older version is NOT an issue
For some its absolutely forbidden - by law - because they work in an industry that is highly regulated and they MUST, use “supported” versions and old versions from Xojo are not “supported” as required.
And for those people its a HUGE problem
The reality is he keeps re-inventing history to suit his needs.
He is turning to be more and more a snake oil salesman. I’ve never knew him like that before; but perhaps I really never knew him at all. Years ago we had a short conversation in which I expressed the poor state Windows was in and that at the very minimum he should be perceived as showing more “love” for Windows to quell some angst; even if the reality was otherwise (in other words, go for the quick low hanging fruit so). I thought he didn’t really understood it, but in light of conversations he has participated in the last two years, it is clear that not only did he understand it but he was way past it and operating on a much different universe (and not afraid to tote the line and go all the way over). Now I know that I can’t really trust anything he says. Which is fine, it was just a misplaced trust on my part.
Dunno if its rewriting history as much as it is just not being REALLY clear when he states something like in the keynote about what that means or is intended to mean.
When we hear “I wont have to rewrite my app to use this new framework” we hear “it should be mostly compatible and there wont be major work to update”
I dont think thats a stretch given how tit was stated.
But, and I’m trying to play mind reader here and being generous as well, I’m not sure thats exactly what was meant.
Yes we wont have to rewrite lots of code - but the new framework deprecates as lot of code and a lot of people are OCD about that sort o thing and feel compelled to rewrite that code.
And the UI, while it “imports” the old project, doesn’t retain all the visual characteristics that it had so we end up with lots of work to “rewrite” the layouts and alter themes and so on.
And, right now, IF you have used certain elements in a Web project you cant update because those components dont exist. Or they work slightly differently.
And thats where a lot of the angst seems, to me, to stem from. What we heard was “it will be easy to update” and thats not turning out to be true; at least not as true was it was believed to be.
Poorly managed expectations maybe ?
And so people are disappointed
at least thats my 2 cents CDN (about 1.4 cents US)
If it was one time then I would give you the olive branch, but it is multiple times. It is write something have someone debunk it and then erase both so there is no trace of it; it is have someone call you out for some clearly deceptive description of the product, argue that it is not deceptive, then come around to “almost” accept it is deceptive, and then turnaround and say that you shouldn’t be doing that anyways because that is not good practice and therefore the deceptive description is ok; it is saying something on the keynote (and having someone produce a record of it), then claiming a different thing was mentioned on the next keynote (and not being able to provide a record of it). It is the pattern, not the specific incident. And that is ok, it just provides clarity (for me) on what level of trust I have for such an individual, and again that is my perception only (no one else needs to share it - that is the beauty of the freedom of thought we have been given since birth).