John A Bertoglio wrote: > Denver Braughler wrote: > > John A Bertoglio wrote: > > > If you need to use $JOB, you are forced into the > > > one-license, one-user model. This is reasonable, > > > since you are using the full power of a Cache license. > > Maybe reasonable, maybe not. > This is the traditional method of licensing high-value databases. > My point is that this model does not translate to the web, > especially when customers are hitting the system at random > intervals. There is just not enough value to support a traditional license. Much less compete with MySQL.
> > What if Windows were licensed by concurrent threads? > > Would that be reasonable too? > Different model, different pricing. One OS license runs one machine. One > dBase license, one Word license and one Cache license. All make sense. The > problem on the web is that the definition of a user gets blown out the > window. What would Microsoft want for Word if one copy run over the web with > an unlimited amount of users? I don't have a good answer for this. Besides that, it doesn't look like a valid comparison. Cache' doesn't run "over the web". Delete "Word" and replace with "IIS" or "Windows 2000". These run on one machine and can serve a million web visitors. There is no restriction or higher cost (so far as I know). Now if folks were running Studio "over the web" as you say, then I agree that each concurrent user reasonably ought to be licensed. Groove is an example like this. But Cache' serving a CSP is no different from IIS serving an ASP. Now I don't know what it cost to run IIS on a big server, but I know what it costs on a workstation, basically nothing. > I suppose it could be argued that since CSP is not really a web technology > using the definintion above. I missed that definition. But I assume that you would make the same argument that Windows 2000 on a webserver is not really a web technology. So if Cache' isn't either, then it should just be licensed once for the machine. > It is really just a tool to convert web pages and data stored in a > database to an HTML stream as well has routing form requests to the > same database. Then it is a web technology just like IIS, etc. And it should be license once for the server. So either way, the current license model makes no sense. > This is a technical advantage if you like CSP > but, clearly, it is a problem with licensing. Indeed. > You can customize the error page. Big consolation there. I'm not sure that you are correct. Well, you can customize *the* error page. But *the* error page is not always what I see when I run out of licenses. > But it still errors out and this is not acceptable on a public web > site. At least not by our way of thinking. > > > Until ISC decides they want a piece of this market, ... > > But ISC is being silly. > This is what happens when you try to mix pricing/value models. It would make more sense to me to restrict database growth. If the free version of Cache' instead limited me to no more than four databases, of 2Kb blocks, no more than 50 Mb total, and initial size = final size, I could deal with those restrictions because those things are under my control. Cache' could compete against other free databases. Instead, ISC restricts me on the one thing I can't control: number of visitors per quarter hour. A better model is by max Gb (per week?) i/o for production systems and max Gb (per month?) plus concurrent Terminal/Studio/SQL windows for development systems.
