Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 2010 21:57:20 +0200
Reply-To:     Winston Groenewald <winston.groenewald@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Winston Groenewald <winston.groenewald@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: SAS and its horrible no-good very bad software management
              system
In-Reply-To:  <1283282821.20799.1392682993@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Perhaps the bigger issue is whether SAS Institute would (or should) consider
it appropriate to analyse your disk to determine what to update.
On 31 August 2010 21:27, Jack Hamilton <jfh@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

> Exactly.  The update program should analyze what you have and present
> you with a list of what you can upgrade.  Then it downloads only what it
> needs to.  This nonsense of going through multiple pages of hotfixes to
> see which ones you need is just ridiculous.
>
> It could easily give you the option of upgrading only what you have
> licensed, or everything you have installed.  It could create a mini
> software depot letting other users reuse what you've already downloaded.
>  I don't see a need to prompt for site number or setinit - if you have a
> working version of SAS, the software can figure it out.
>
> The installation process is easier than it used to be, but it's still
> bad.  I don't see that their new hotfix system has helped at all.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:47 -0500, "Matthew Pettis"
> <matt.pettis@THOMSONREUTERS.COM> wrote:
> > I compare it against Linux-like package installs, with
> > apt/aptitude/rpm/yum etc., or PPM for perl... It just works.  It knows
> > your versions, your dependencies, and it just does the right thing
> > quickly and efficiently.  And those things are free!  And yeah, it would
> > have to manage order numbers and whatever their term is for our unique
> > passwords, but that shouldn't be a big deal.
> >
> > I guess there are at least two ways to compare it -- to history, where
> > it is better than it was in say the 70s, 80s, or 90s, or to the current
> > state of other companies managing their software, in which it compares
> > miserably.  Not having a history with SAS that far back, I don't have
> > the perspective of the former, only of the latter, and that is why I'm
> > frustrated.
> >
> > I expect better from a company whose product for which people pay (and
> > is not inexpensive, to boot).
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
> > Peter Flom
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:35 AM
> > To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: SAS and its horrible no-good very bad software management
> > system
> >
> > Ron Fehd wrote
> >
> > <<<
> > Oh, consider the alternative:
> > Individual hotfixes,
> > yeah, I know that pair is redundant.
> >
> > From where I sit
> > The current system is Sliced Bread
> > You want the Latest&Greatest?
> > -- like EG v4.3 --
> > Get back to me tomorrow and I'll have the depot
> > And all the HotFixes issued up to end of last week.
> > >>>
> >
> > Well, consider how R gets updated: Twice a year, there is a new version.
> > You go to the website, click a button (one for Windows, one for Mac,
> > there's
> > other options too), agree to a couple options and bingo!  In 10 minutes
> > or
> > so, you are done.
> >
> > SAS would, of course, need to add a spot to enter your authorization
> > code or
> > whatever, and it might take a little longer than R, since SAS is big,
> > but
> > why is it so hard?  Why can't the authorization code automatically
> > determine
> > which parts of SAS you have licensed?
> >
> > I wonder how much Tech Support time is devoted to installation issues.
> > I
> > know that at one point (this was probably 2008) it took me an hour with
> > Tech
> > Support just to update.  I doubt I am alone.
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
>
> --
> Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
>
> Jack Hamilton
> Sacramento, California
> jfh@alumni.stanford.org
>



--
Winston Groenewald

--- An adult dove crashed full-speed into our glass patio door; death was
instant. Curious, I measured the wing area and weighed the bird while still
warm, gathering data for wing-loading. For this dove, it turned out to be
.87 square feet per pound. I imagine, however, the body and tail also
contribute a bit to lift. Applied to an average 160-pound human, the wings
would have to be about 38 feet in span, disregarding weight of the wing
itself. I haven't seen any angels in statues or pictures with near this size
wing, but Divine Assistance is probably another factor.  (
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/10/26/askthepilot251/index1.html)
---