Hi Jim,

>
>SNIP
>Well put. But you've struck upon the reason why I think it's gotta be "full disclosure" (xxx doesn't work correctly when yyy and zzz) rather than "disclosure" (the product isn't safe any more).
>The second statement is a death knell for the product while the first instance more or less turns it around into being an advantage.

I think I understand where you're coming from. It shows that the company understands the problem and has a handle on a solution. But I'd don't think I sounds the death knell. Today's society has been conditioned to deal with recalls and the like. Thats a good thing for a society that's always pushing the technology. Problems are bound to crop up. I expect it. I'm also willing to stick with a basically good product while the bugs are worked out.

Then there's the issue, we use to call in the military "need to know" when it comes to the intiment details. When it comes to software that will probably be fixed in short order. Does everyone need to know the xyz's of the problem? I'd say probably not, unless they are responsible for fixing the problem. Does the user need to know of the problem in general so they can take preventive measures if the user feels it warranted? Sure. On the other hand, do you need to know the XXX tires on your ZZZ truck might explode will driving home. You bet, there you need the details. Every situation is different. There is no black and white, just different shades of gray. Who makes that decision? The company who's product is involed. How they handle it shows whether they have their eye on their customers and their future, or on the bottom line.

BTW I really like your sig line.

Tony
Skill comes from Diligence