I don’t dispute that, or that SaaS is the wave of the future (present?), just I find Intuit to be a money-grubbing borderline unethical company to deal with, that nonetheless dominates their market niche. Probably because the accountants all use it. As far as getting the bug fixes immediately because you subscribe as a service, that would mean more if it didn’t take Intuit years to fix bugs. There is actually very little improvement from year to year in Quickbooks, it is mostly cosmetic or related to new services they want to sell you. Which tend to be pretty poor, for example their payroll service is really pathetic, you’re almost better off filling out the tax forms by hand.
But as an other example of SaaS, Adobe has gone heavily that direction with their creative suites. If you are a graphic designer or web designer, I’m sure it’s a very good deal. For someone like me with an owned copy of Photoshop, it probably doesn’t make sense to start paying monthly, since I could care less about having the latest improvements, I don’t use it intensively enough to make it worthwhile. Maybe for Dreamweaver since HTML techniques are changing all the time. At least Adobe doesn’t require that you are connected to the Internet in order to use the software. I don’t really have any problem with their approach, even though it doesn’t work out so well for me. From: Travis Johnson via Af Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SM Isolation question I haven't seen the same results... every single company I am involved with, and even the 20+ that I have met with over the last three months have all used Quickbooks. Travis On 10/16/2014 8:12 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I would not use anything related to Quickbooks as an example of the best way to do something. Your only choices from Intuit are how you get screwed, not whether. From: Travis Johnson via Af Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SM Isolation question How do you figure? Everything will eventually be SaaS... and it's a much better model for both sides. The software stays updated and current and bug fixes are instant. The initial cost to start with the software is usually 1/10th what it would be to buy, and it allows people to use the software from anywhere. Many years ago, I was of the same opinion. Then I started to realize my time (or anyone else's time) was better spent focusing on the product we sold rather than installing/fixing/supporting someone else's software. I know I personally spent at least 50+ hours over the previous 15 years installing/fixing/supporting Quickbooks on our LAN. Getting it installed on a server, setting up the shares, mapping drive letters, installing it on each PC, etc. The software cost us $500 to buy, and then the yearly updates were usually $200-$300. Or you can subscribe to the online version for $39/month and be done with it. It's automatically backed up, you don't have to host it on your own server, or worry about upgrade issues or users with problems, etc. Time is money. Spend your time doing what you know how to do, and hire someone else to do the other tasks. :) Travis On 10/15/2014 9:31 PM, Tyler Treat via Af wrote: True story. ___________________________ Mangled by my iPhone. ___________________________ Tyler Treat Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. [email protected] ___________________________ On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:30 PM, Jason McKemie via Af <[email protected]> wrote: Yeah, SaaS is great for the company that owns it, not so great for everyone else. On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Travis Johnson via Af <[email protected]> wrote: Nope... mainly SaaS companies and real estate. Best of both worlds. :) Travis On 10/15/2014 3:40 PM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: Someone told me you were getting into manufacturing�� Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 10/15/14, 5:31 PM, "Travis Johnson via Af" <[email protected]> wrote: It just depends on the day... :) Involved in 11 companies now, and looking at a 12th. Always stuff going on. LOL Travis On 10/15/2014 3:16 PM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: Travis, are you getting bored at your current job? Lol!! Great to see you active in the list! Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 10/15/14, 4:14 PM, "Travis Johnson via Af" <[email protected]> wrote: The other issue is p2p traffic between two people on the same AP.... and if you are doing bandwidth shaping in your router, even at the tower, you will never see these packets. Or in the case the original poster asked about, that customer could keep a high-def window open of all their video cameras at the other location, using 3-4Mbps of constant traffic, and you would never see it. Travis On 10/15/2014 1:48 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: When you forward SM-to-SM traffic upstream, there's nothing the router can do about it. Put the two locations on different IP subnets so that traffic between the two has to be routed. Or turn off SM isolation. I leave SM isolation off because I'm not that paranoid. The biggest risk is broadcast/multicast crap flying around. So use the SM uplink broadcast/multicast rate limiting. This is one of the best features of Canopy, IMO. On 10/15/2014 2:23 PM, Christopher Tyler via Af wrote: We have a customer that has two SM's on the same AP at separate physical locations (home and office). The have a DVR at each location that they want to view. Everything is configured properly on their end to view the DVR's on port 80 through their routers. Problem is that we have SM isolation turned on with option 2 to forward packets upstream and they want to see the home when at the office and the office when at home. So I set up a mangle rule in my Mikortik to mark the packets with a routing mark based on the SRC and DST addresses, and then used a static route for anything what that mark and send it back to the AP port. It doesn't work, what am I doing wrong, any suggestions short of disabling SM isolation?
