TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2011-03 > 1299689402-01
From: Rick Van Dusen <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] design question
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:50:02 -0800
References: <009801cbdd9d$7168f920$543aeb60$@net> <201138104644.628638@Terry> <00a001cbddad$b52b0fd0$1f812f70$@com> <4D7668EC.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org><00d601cbde67$37c5f8b0$a751ea10$@net>
I think what Dennis meant by "dead end" is the import to TMG from UFT. I
don't think he's bashing UFT or its users, but saying that when UFT went
orphan and users switched to TMG, once that was done, the need for
exporting/importing Witness/Role ended.
(Theoretically, there may still be UFT users out there who have not
switched to TMG but someday will. In that sense, Dennis would be "wrong"
about "dead end".)
You're absolutely right that "any software developer could add the
features...". The fact, though, is that they haven't. Therefore, there
remains no place to put the Witness/Role, etc., data even if it could be
exported from TMG. So in that context also, exporting that data from TMG
is also a dead end.
Teresa Elliott wrote:
> Why is it a dead end? Whollygenes saw a market in the former UFT users and
> added features that would encourage us to move to TMG. TMG users got new
> features. UFT users got a program that has been updating and growing for ten
> more years. Any software developer out there could add the features to
> their programs if they wanted TMG users. Roots Magic already has witness
> sentences and allows for multiple roles to a tag.
> What I don't understand is TMG users who still feel the need to ostracize
> former UFT users more than a decade later.
|Re: [TMG] design question by Rick Van Dusen <>|