More fP sockets pricing insanity

[Kenneth Brody]

Quoting Fairlight (Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:10:50 -0500):

> Only Kenneth Brody would say something like:
> >
> > The website also doesn't clarify the fact that filePro will, in
> > fact, run on a Friday the 13th under a full moon.
>
> True.  :)
>
> > Now, if you had told me that you got the misconception based on
> > something from the website, or even from something that fPTech
> > had said, I would agree that the website should do something to
> > correct it.  To say that the website should clarify something
> > that, until now, no one has ever said (AFAIK), is asking a bit
> > much, don't you think?
>
> Not really.  The problem is that "user" has been a nebulous and often
> misleading term when used in the context of fP.  SYSTEM() calls to clerk
> or report prior to 5.6 are one issue.  Concurrent use of those programs
> under multiplexors other than FacetWin are another;

But is has never been the case that a single dclerk would count as
more than one for anything.

> Bud, in a move that I consider sheer ignorance, flat-out told Jay
> publicly that screen(1) will never be supported as a single user--
> that's in the list archives for anyone that cares to look.

As I recall, under screen(1) it is not possible to determine that
two processes are actually connected to the same physical terminal.

> There -is- a history here that basically amounts to, "Any time
> 'something' accesses fP, even if it's fP itself, it's considered a
> 'user'."

But it has never been the case that "any time filePro accesses
'something', it's considered a 'user'".  You're not talking about
some daemon starting up lots of dclerks -- you're talking about a
single dclerk connecting to multiple sockets.


> And 5.6 being so new and hardly adopted yet, it isn't enough to
> reverse a multiple-decade-long historical trend entrenched in the
> minds of the community.

I haven't heard anyone else come to your original assumption that
every time you call SOCKET(), you eat another license.

> So when someone says "user" under filePro, one could very, very easily
> draw the conclusion that anyone accessing a server written in fP using
> sockets is one "user" per connection,

AFAIK, you're the only one who jumped to that conclusion.  Again, it
has never been the case that a single dclerk has counted for more than
one of anything.

[...]
> So to answer your question, yes, I feel if they want to avoid such
> misunderstandings, it behooves them to state the specs outright and
> verbosely.  Inadvertantly or not, they've misled people for years on the
> user count issue; there's no reason to further shoot themselves in the
> foot just by being nebulous.

--
KenBrody at BestWeb dot net        spamtrap: <g8ymh8uf001 at sneakemail.com>
http://www.hvcomputer.com
http://www.fileProPlus.com