Answering filePro questions (was Re: how many users?)

[Richard Kreiss]

Top post:

Most if not all of the older versions of filePro (DOS/Windows) still work.
The only caveat is that p.exe on the older versions will not run on a 64bit
windows system.  However, with  a p.exe with a date of 7/26/2000, fp 4.08.10
it will run on my 64bit windows system.,

The only problem I have had with clients with older versions is that when
the ask if I can add a function or do something else, like restart page
numbering, and I advise them of the cost to upgrade, most do not want to
upgrade.  This has nothing to do with the license manager, they just don't
want to spend the money when 95% or more of the application is doing what
they want and the added feature, in their mind, can't be cost justified.
Most of these clients watched their business die when the textile tariffs
were lifted as they dealt with the textile and apparel industries.  My
current clients have upgraded as features they needed were added.  The
license manager has not been a problem.

As far as I am concerned, I would have liked to have seen this implemented
many years ago as I had one of my application "lifted" by an employee of a
client.  Of course, he never got any support from me and in fact would not
allow me in his offices to see if he was running my application.  I
eventually wrote some code which checked for a file buried deeply in the DOS
directory and then in Windows directory with a name which made it appear to
be a system file.  Without this file present,  nothing worked except a
notification to contact my company.  This also insured I would get a call
when a new computer was ordered.


Richard Kreiss
GCC Consulting

Office: 410-653-2813



> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com] On
> Behalf Of Kenneth Brody
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:19 AM
> To: Fairlight; filePro Mailing List
> Subject: Answering filePro questions (was Re: how many users?)
> 
> On 12/7/2013 8:58 PM, Fairlight wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 12:09:40PM -0500, Kenneth Brody thus spoke:
> >> On 12/5/2013 9:23 PM, Fairlight wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:29:54AM -0500, Kenneth Brody thus spoke:
> >>>>
> >>>> But, if dclerk system's out to dreport, you'll see two entries.
> >>>> (Actually, you'll probably see 3, including the original runmenu.)
> >>>
> >>> Yes, and if you're running <= 5.6, my approach is still correct,
> >>> since system()ing off clerk and report ate another licence prior to
that
> version.
> >>> Most of my clients are still on <= 5.0.14.
> >>
> >> Given that 5.0.14 was released over 9 years ago, I didn't really feel
> >> the need to include that as part of the discussion.  ;-)
> >
> > Then, respectfully as possible, you're out of touch with a sizeable
> > chunk of the userbase's desires, state, and direction.  I know far
> > more people, clients and non-clients both, who use <= 5.0.14 than not.
> > Most of the
> 
> Perhaps.  However, if someone asks me how to do something in filePro, I
will
> base my answer on the current version, unless they specify otherwise.
> 
> If someone asks "how do I get LISTBOX() to start with the highlight at a
given
> position", my answer would be "pass it as the 8th parameter", not "use
> PUSHKEY to push the desired amount of CDWNs".
> 
> If someone asks "how do I get the page number to start back at 1 in the
middle
> of a report", I would answer "use RESET @PN", and not some long-winded
> description of keeping track of the page number manually.
> 
> If someone were to ask "how can I intercept @KEYF and conditionally list
the
> forms to print", I would mention "DOKEY".
> 
> Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> [...]
> > Windows XP was released longer ago than that, and it's still not EOL
> > for another four months.  RHEL and SLE[SD] distributions have a shelf
> > life of ten years.  I scoff at your arbitrary nine year line in the
> > sand for many reasons.
> 
> I didn't draw any "line in the sand".  I didn't say "I won't answer your
question
> because you're not on the current version", did I?
> 
> filePro still supports Windows XP.  And we purposely use an older version
of
> Linux for building filePro, just so that we can still support the
11-year-old 2.3
> version of glibc still used by some distribs.
> 
> >> ps -e -o sess,pid,comm | grep [flags] | awk '{print $1}' | sort -n |
> >> wc -l
> >
> > Bleh.  If I have to invoke sort(1), I'm going to use perl so that I'm
> > -sure- it's done right. sort(1) tends to do what it likes, rather than
> > what it intuitively should.
> 
> Well, I don't recall ever having a problem with sort, and certainly not
with
> "sort -n" when the first column is a number.  (However, I've never used it
for
> any "complex" sorting.)
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> > Even perl's sort() has this tendency, but the saving grace is that you
> > can actually specify a definable callback and program the -exact-
> > relationships you want, if the stock behaviour isn't cutting it.
> 
> --
> Kenneth Brody
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list