FilePro License Manager

[Laura Brody]

I have a few filePro customers at this point. One gets a new computer every
2 years like clockwork. I can get a new license for the new computer on the
same day. Never had a problem. Yes, the license manager can be a pain when
something isn't right, but I haven't had any major problems that couldn't
be solved the same day.

Laura Brody

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Richard Kreiss via Filepro-list <
filepro-list at lists.celestial.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Filepro-list [mailto:filepro-list-
> > bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com] On Behalf Of Henry
> Melancon
> > via Filepro-list
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 5:32 PM
> > To: Filepro 2 List <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
> > Subject: RE: FilePro License Manager
> >
> > LICENSEs = PROBLEMS I do not want OR have the time to deal with......
>
> 5.0.15 required licensing.
>
> As I have said many times, I and my clients are not having any issues with
> the license manager.
>
> When one of my clients installed a new server and upgraded to 5.8, a new
> license was issued quickly.  There was no hassle to install the new version
> and get the service running.  As the startup file points to the address of
> the server, I only had to make a minor change in that file to point at the
> proper license.
>
>
> Richard Kreiss
> GCC Consulting
>
>
>
> >
> > THE END
> >
> > Henry W. Melancon
> > Quality Control
> > Gulf Island Fabrication
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Filepro-list [mailto:filepro-list-
> > bounces+hemelancon=gifinc.com at lists.celestial.com] On Behalf Of
> Fairlight
> via
> > Filepro-list
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 4:23 PM
> > To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > Subject: Re: FilePro License Manager
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 04:12:53PM -0400, Timothy R Barr via Filepro-list
> thus
> > spoke:
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > We all know your POV on this, but please don't call me a liar.
> > [snip]
> > > you're big on facts
> >
> > 1) FACT - You said:
> >
> > > > Yes, disconnected remote desktop sessions can eat some licenses.
> >
> > That -is- a problem.  That -does- get in your way if you do not address
> it.
> >
> > 2) FACT - You said:
> >
> > > > But we have a nightly.bat file that restarts the license manager, GI
> > > > server, clears open share sessions, and then runs other nightly
> > > > exports and processes.
> >
> > You publicly admit you are addressing a problem.
> >
> > 3) FACT - You said:
> >
> > > I choose to run such a housekeeping script nightly before my backups,
> > > as it guarantees that even users who are connected but didn't log off
> > > are cleared.  My choice, and I need it to clean up Windows (or Unix)
> > > sessions as much as to make sure I'm not wasting any FP licenses.  In
> > > client sites
> >
> > You further admit and expound upon the fact that you are addressing the
> > problem, in order to guarantee mitigation of said problem.
> >
> > 4) FACT - You said:
> >
> > > > Bottom line, The license manager does not get in my way.
> >
> > You made a blatantly untrue statement.  The license manager -does- get in
> your
> > way, if you had to go out of your way to guarantee performance which the
> > license manager should inherently guarantee on its own.  Choice or not
> (sure,
> > you -could- let it screw you over randomly), it obviously -did- get in
> your way
> > enough to trouble you to -make- the choice to address it.
> >
> > 5) QUESTION:  What do -you- call someone who intentionally and knowingly
> > makes untrue statements in favour of their own point of view, contrary to
> the
> > facts?
> >
> > If you don't like the assertion, don't invite it by exhibiting the
> behaviour the
> > assertion describes.  QED.
> >
> > In point of FACT, I didn't explicitly call you a liar.  I said your
> statement was a lie.
> > The statement -is- demonstrably a lie, but I did not go for a personal
> attack.  You
> > inferred one, but that's your problem, since I never said it directly.  I
> was
> > addressing the statement alone, not your character.  However, if you want
> to
> > turn it into something it wasn't, well then I've just shown you that you
> have no
> > leg to stand on for that argument either.
> >
> > NEXT!
> >
> > mark->
> > --
> > Audio panton, cogito singularis.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Filepro-list mailing list
> > Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.c
> > elestial.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffilepro-
> > list&data=01%7C01%7Chemelancon%40gifinc.com%7Ca214c7ddd3e54a0e214f
> > 08d4e4ed1948%7Ca3e66affd7674dabad3755c96bce6af7%7C0&sdata=WWCW3
> > hJtA1SKhhXdMbjKGhJ7KOVq8K4aHVs7hQzIy7w%3D&reserved=0
> > _______________________________________________
> > Filepro-list mailing list
> > Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> > http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/attachments/20170817/a24b5478/attachment.html>