License issue

[Dennis Diller]

I have a 5 user license of Filepro  Linux version 5.6
and if I go over the user count filepro locks up, the user loging on gets 
the error message
over user count. then all remaining user that are log on gets lock out and
we have to reboot the server to get filepro working again.
I don't understand why the use count isn't counted by the user id or the 
machine or IP address.
I have a singe user word and can open is many documents I can only work on 1 
at a time.

This is a big problem because if a user is log in and left with the session 
opened it counts as 1 license
and if he left with 2 sessions open it counts as 2.  I am  thinking of 
upgrading to 5.7 but I see others are
having issue with license and sockets. But having this issue with filepro 
locking up when going over the
user count is a real pain.

example: Someone leave the office with 2 sessions of filepro running both 
sessions open with the same ID
same computer and same IP address. They get to a remote location and logs in 
using the same user ID but
a different Computer and IP address. If we went over the user limit filepro 
locks up and any other users log in
will be lock out until the server is rebooted. That means we must contact 
someone with root password to do
this and the down time is very upsetting and pain full.


Anyone having a fix for this
Dennis Diller
Office (410) 667-0004
Cell (410) 274-4073
Toll Free (800) 872-4970




--------------------------------------------------
From: <filepro-list-request at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 6:15 AM
To: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Subject: Filepro-list Digest, Vol 100, Issue 26

> Send Filepro-list mailing list submissions to;s.
> filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> filepro-list-request at lists.celestial.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> filepro-list-owner at lists.celestial.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Filepro-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: sockets (Kenneth Brody)
>   2. RE: sockets (Ed Hilovsky)
>   3. Re: sockets (Kenneth Brody)
>   4. RE: sockets (Ed Hilovsky)
>   5. Re: sockets (Brian K. White)
>   6. Re: sockets (Kenneth Brody)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:46:24 -0400
> From: Kenneth Brody <kenbrody at spamcop.net>
> Subject: Re: sockets
> To: lgf at lgfcomputers.net
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Message-ID: <4FB67CE0.2090904 at spamcop.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/18/2012 12:20 PM, Ed Hilovsky wrote:
> [...]
>> So, say I purchase a 5 user socket license (oh and 1 development socket
>> license - whatever that is ) So, logically I have a 5 user socket license
>> that is independent of my runtimes, I read that as I can have 5 socket
>> connections open.
>
> You read that wrong.  You can have 5 filePro processes using sockets.
> Whether each uses 1 or 50 is irrelevant.
>
> [...]
>> I've worked with server
>> systems before that use sockets. When you issue a socketclose that server
>> drops the connections and de-increments the connected count. So, why 
>> doesn't
>> FP ?
>
> Because filePro isn't counting the number of sockets.
>
> Using your server example...  Nothing in filePro stops you from writing a
> "server", and talking to 50 "clients" simultaneously, yet still uses only 
> 1
> license.
>
> [...]
>
> -- 
> Kenneth Brody
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:08:08 -0400
> From: "Ed Hilovsky" <lgf at lgfcomputers.net>
> Subject: RE: sockets
> To: "'Kenneth Brody'" <kenbrody at spamcop.net>
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Message-ID: <000201cd3518$cd097a10$671c6e30$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Therein lies the problem. FP has "designated" a new way to count socket
> connections.
> If there is a socket server and I connect to it, it shows one connection.
> When I do a socketclose it shows 0 connections.
> Whatever logic you are using is beyond me.
> Bottom line, look at what people are saying. The majority say FP is wrong 
> in
> the way they count socket connections.
> Once I open a socket in filepro, you count that process that connect(ed).
> Then even if I don't have an active socket open and connected, you are
> counting it against the license. You say this as though all of us should
> just understand that the socket license was always sold linked to fp
> processes. Well, I never saw that. I was never give that interpretation. I
> was just told the price and that I needed a development socket license 
> also.
> So, without a firm disclaimer about how FP counts, I use what the rest of
> the world does. And the rest of the world doesn't link socket connections 
> to
> anything other than connect and socketclose. It's simple, connect to a
> socket at a specific port and IP and when done do a socketclose.
> Period...............
>
> ?--?
>
> Ed Hilovsky
> LGF Computers
>
> Main Office?? : (724) 463-7633
> Toll Free??????   : (800) 653-8479
> Fax Number : (866) 448-5415
> Cellular????????   : (412) 289-1773
>
> email? lgf at lgfcomputers.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Brody [mailto:kenbrody at spamcop.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 12:46 PM
> To: lgf at lgfcomputers.net
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: sockets
>
> On 5/18/2012 12:20 PM, Ed Hilovsky wrote:
> [...]
>> So, say I purchase a 5 user socket license (oh and 1 development
>> socket license - whatever that is ) So, logically I have a 5 user
>> socket license that is independent of my runtimes, I read that as I
>> can have 5 socket connections open.
>
> You read that wrong.  You can have 5 filePro processes using sockets.
> Whether each uses 1 or 50 is irrelevant.
>
> [...]
>> I've worked with server
>> systems before that use sockets. When you issue a socketclose that
>> server drops the connections and de-increments the connected count.
>> So, why doesn't FP ?
>
> Because filePro isn't counting the number of sockets.
>
> Using your server example...  Nothing in filePro stops you from writing a
> "server", and talking to 50 "clients" simultaneously, yet still uses only 
> 1
> license.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Kenneth Brody
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:34:10 -0400
> From: Kenneth Brody <kenbrody at spamcop.net>
> Subject: Re: sockets
> To: lgf at lgfcomputers.net
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Message-ID: <4FB68812.2030303 at spamcop.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/18/2012 1:08 PM, Ed Hilovsky wrote:
>> Therein lies the problem. FP has "designated" a new way to count socket
>> connections.
>
> That's just it...  We're *not* counting "socket connections".
>
>> If there is a socket server and I connect to it, it shows one
>> connection. When I do a socketclose it shows 0 connections.
>
> If there's a "socket server", then there's 1 "socket server".  If you
> connect to it 50 times, there's still 1 "socket server".
>
>> Whatever logic you are using is beyond me. Bottom line, look at what
>> people are saying. The majority say FP is wrong in the way they count
>> socket connections.
>
> You keep making the argument "if other programs can count apples 
> correctly,
> why can't filePro count them correctly", and my answer has consistently 
> been
> "we don't count apples, we count apple baskets, and we count them just 
> fine".
>
>> Once I open a socket in filepro, you count that process that
>> connect(ed).
>
> No, it doesn't, as it doesn't count connections.
>
>> Then even if I don't have an active socket open and
>> connected, you are counting it against the license. You say this as
>> though all of us should just understand that the socket license was
>> always sold linked to fp processes.
>
> Let's say you buy a 16-user runtime license.  You have a process that uses
> the main file and 5 others via lookups.  Do you use 1 runtime license or 
> 6?
>
>> Well, I never saw that. I was never
>> give that interpretation. I was just told the price and that I needed a
>> development socket license also. So, without a firm disclaimer about how
>> FP counts, I use what the rest of the world does. And the rest of the
>> world doesn't link socket connections to anything other than connect and
>> socketclose. It's simple, connect to a socket at a specific port and IP
>> and when done do a socketclose. Period...............
>
> If we were licensing connections, I'd agree with you.  But, that's not 
> what
> is being counted.
>
> -- 
> Kenneth Brody
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:51:23 -0400
> From: "Ed Hilovsky" <lgf at lgfcomputers.net>
> Subject: RE: sockets
> To: "'Kenneth Brody'" <kenbrody at spamcop.net>
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Message-ID: <000c01cd351e$d7e989b0$87bc9d10$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> I think FP needs to be a bit more forthcoming regarding this. You sell a
> socket license. (but you don't sell socket connections) If a server has a
> license limit of 25 connections, and there are 25 connections, when the 
> 26th
> connection is attempted, it will fail. But when one of those 25 does a
> socketclose then the 26th ( if it retried) would connect.
> You "REQUIRE" a certain method of programming to make your method work. 
> Just
> because I use a CALL statement, you can't understand that that "process" 
> is
> closed and the socket was also.
>
> Obviously, FP is right and we all are wrong.
> Simple. No wonder FP has had resounding success and is pulling in new
> developers every day.
> Listen to your customers.
> What's the old saying - The Customer is Always Right.
>
> That is unless you deal with FP.
>
> No documentation, no description, no stipulations. Just buy the license 
> and
> then we tell you how we made it work.
>
>
> No need to say any more as I see the light ( actually in this instance -
> darkness)
>
> Look at where FP is and maybe ( maybe) see that this would be a benefit to
> those still using it and maybe (maybe) even attract NEW developers if you
> used a more sane method and actually counted socket connections.
> ?--?
>
> Ed Hilovsky
> LGF Computers
>
> Main Office?? : (724) 463-7633
> Toll Free??????   : (800) 653-8479
> Fax Number : (866) 448-5415
> Cellular????????   : (412) 289-1773
>
> email? lgf at lgfcomputers.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Brody [mailto:kenbrody at spamcop.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 1:34 PM
> To: lgf at lgfcomputers.net
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: sockets
>
> On 5/18/2012 1:08 PM, Ed Hilovsky wrote:
>> Therein lies the problem. FP has "designated" a new way to count
>> socket connections.
>
> That's just it...  We're *not* counting "socket connections".
>
>> If there is a socket server and I connect to it, it shows one
>> connection. When I do a socketclose it shows 0 connections.
>
> If there's a "socket server", then there's 1 "socket server".  If you
> connect to it 50 times, there's still 1 "socket server".
>
>> Whatever logic you are using is beyond me. Bottom line, look at what
>> people are saying. The majority say FP is wrong in the way they count
>> socket connections.
>
> You keep making the argument "if other programs can count apples 
> correctly,
> why can't filePro count them correctly", and my answer has consistently 
> been
> "we don't count apples, we count apple baskets, and we count them just
> fine".
>
>> Once I open a socket in filepro, you count that process that
>> connect(ed).
>
> No, it doesn't, as it doesn't count connections.
>
>> Then even if I don't have an active socket open and connected, you are
>> counting it against the license. You say this as though all of us
>> should just understand that the socket license was always sold linked
>> to fp processes.
>
> Let's say you buy a 16-user runtime license.  You have a process that uses
> the main file and 5 others via lookups.  Do you use 1 runtime license or 
> 6?
>
>> Well, I never saw that. I was never
>> give that interpretation. I was just told the price and that I needed
>> a development socket license also. So, without a firm disclaimer about
>> how FP counts, I use what the rest of the world does. And the rest of
>> the world doesn't link socket connections to anything other than
>> connect and socketclose. It's simple, connect to a socket at a
>> specific port and IP and when done do a socketclose. 
>> Period...............
>
> If we were licensing connections, I'd agree with you.  But, that's not 
> what
> is being counted.
>
> --
> Kenneth Brody
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 14:31:20 -0400
> From: "Brian K. White" <brian at aljex.com>
> Subject: Re: sockets
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Message-ID: <4FB69578.6030702 at aljex.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> The socket licensing is only illogical in that no one really wants it
> that way, but it's not intrinsically illogical.
>
> You are not licensing individual sockets, you licensing the right to use
> the socket features at all.
>
> It's pretty simple and Ken is right that people are just thinking about
> it wrong.
>
> Richard had the right question which I would like to see the answer to,
> because that would make Ed and Nancy's arguments at least 50% valid.
>
> If the license isn't counted when a process starts, unless and until the
> first time a process actually uses any socket feature, then it really is
> reasonable to expect that license to also be released when the process
> is no longer using any socket feature.
>
> But I see no technical foul play here, no justification to cry foul and
> no problem to build a working and predictable application. You just have
> to understand what the rules are, and it's perfectly possible to play by
> them. They are odd, and I have rejected them for the various reasons I
> already stated, but they are not broken or even unfair unless one
> question comes back the wrong way:
>
> Ed, in your application, are you saying that you have a socket function
> in a call table, and that within a single clerk or report
> process/session, every call to the call table decremented the sockets
> license and those didn't release until the parent clerk exited? That
> would be completely broken. This question is only meaningful if you had
> more than one sockets license total. I would expect one sockets license
> to be used, and not released until clerk exited, but no more than one
> sockets licenses to be used for that clerk session no matter how many
> times you called the call table and no matter how many sockets you
> opened and left open concurrently.
>
> So it's basically just like all fp licenses since the beginning. If you
> have 5 users and collectively they may end up running a peak total of
> say 25 concurrent processes due to multiple windows, cron jobs, cgi
> scripts etc, and any of them might potentially use sockets features,
> possibly all at the same time, then you need 25 licenses to be sure.
>
> What makes it reasonable to even offer to license the feature separately
> is, you may also have a 500 process system with only one single cron job
> or perpetual looping daemon process that uses sockets for one thing, and
> none of the other 500 processes anywhere ever uses any sockets. In that
> case you would only have to buy theoretically a single sockets license,
> or 2 or 3 just to be safe.
>
> -- 
> bkw
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 14:33:04 -0400
> From: Kenneth Brody <kenbrody at spamcop.net>
> Subject: Re: sockets
> To: lgf at lgfcomputers.net
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Message-ID: <4FB695E0.9030203 at spamcop.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/18/2012 1:51 PM, Ed Hilovsky wrote:
>>
>> I think FP needs to be a bit more forthcoming regarding this. You sell a
>> socket license. (but you don't sell socket connections) If a server has a
>> license limit of 25 connections, and there are 25 connections, when the 
>> 26th
>> connection is attempted, it will fail.
>
> Can you install that "server" on 25 different computers, as long as each 
> one
> only uses 1 connection?
>
>> But when one of those 25 does a
>> socketclose then the 26th ( if it retried) would connect.
>
> And when one of the 25 *clerk/*report sessions exit, the 26th one could 
> gain
> access to the socket functionality.
>
>> You "REQUIRE" a certain method of programming to make your method work.
>
> Huh?
>
>> Just
>> because I use a CALL statement, you can't understand that that "process" 
>> is
>> closed and the socket was also.
>
> Again, we are *not* counting the number of *connections*.  The fact that 
> you
> have closed one of the *connections* is irrelevant.
>
>> Obviously, FP is right and we all are wrong.
>
> When you say "filePro doesn't count X correctly" when the fact is that
> filePro doesn't count "X" at all, but rather "Y".
>
> Again, if you have a 25-user runtime, and your processing uses the main 
> file
> plus 5 others via lookup "connections", are you using 1 runtime license or 
> 6?
>
> [...]
>
> Now, if your point is that filePro *should* count X and not Y, then you'll
> need to discuss that with TPTB.  But, to insist that filePro *is* counting
> X, and doing it incorrectly, then yes, you are wrong.
>
> -- 
> Kenneth Brody
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>
>
> End of Filepro-list Digest, Vol 100, Issue 26
> *********************************************
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/5007 - Release Date: 05/18/12
>