"Denver Braughler" wrote: > John A Bertoglio wrote: > > While you have an obligation to purchase a development system, this > > can be deferred while you evaluate the technology. > > And while someone figures out what it cost. > Clearly, there is no excuse for a company failing to give you the information require to buy their product!
> There is no need for me to rehash points on which we are pretty much in > agreement. > That's why I write mainly about disagreements. > > > The downloadable version > > won't support all the enterprise features but it is more than enough for > > basic development and testing. > > The is just plain untrue. Lets be careful, here. My information may be incorrect. You may disagree with me. It is not a lie. > Someone from ISC made that remark. > But I challenged him and he conceded that he had no idea if what he was saying > was true. He just heard it somewhere. > > It's hype. The fact is that you can't develop most serious applications with > a one job system. > If by serious, you mean systems that REQUIRE multiple jobs, of course your are correct. On the other hand, all of my apps (admittedly, WebLink) can even be deployed with a download version as long as we only use one namespace. I once copied the wrong key and found that it ran for a week with the single,default process. All of the machines in my training room (5 boxes) run the downloadable version. This is all we need to do any kind of development/training that has come up. I don't have a problem running the free versions since the people who use them are either myself (which means I'm not using my dev system) or clients who either have their own licenses or are evaluating the technology. I suppose to be absolutely right with the Lord I should buy a single user license for each of these stations and at some point, I probably will. > Then not long ago Mr McCormick said, and I'm not quoting him, that a download > version couldn't even purge its own logs because a device is a slot and you > get only one. > So the download version can't even run a task at a time with task manager. > I would suggest that running the task manager is a fairly sophisticated need...one that, typically, would not be needed until it was nearly time to deploy a production system. That system would require a proper license. > And then there's the matter of web slots. > Even Lori admitted that Cache' couldn't count sessions. > If you are developing CSPs and crashing your browser, you can get > <LICENSE LIMIT EXCEEDED> very easily and needlessly. > CSP is a nightmare with anything but an unlimited license. You are correct here. I have been a critic of this decision since CSP was in alpha. > > ... at the end of the day, you pay a fair price. > I still haven't been contacted. > And I think your wrong anyway. > I'm pretty sure that they couldn't give me a fair price. > ISC was inflexible simply because they have no policy for it. > A gentleman in California wanted to provide Cache'/CSP hosting and > ISC said no way would they license it. > So has they end of the day come? > I considered doing CSP/WLD hosting and was very pleased with the response I received when I inquired about license costs. I have not moved forward on this because of the hassle factor. I suspect the gentleman in CA gave up to soon. The reason I defered on hosting was the combination of high demand/low buck customers that I suspected the venture would attract. The other issue was inherent problem with Cache that makes it difficult to secure separate namespaces. This means that every customer needs their own install which really complicates licensing. If 5.1 actually allows protected namespaces, I suspect you will see a significant increase Cache hosting. > > > I am sure > > that if someone built a $60 single user video game that required a single > > user license, ISC would figure out a way to make that customer's product > > deployable. > How long would it take them to figure it out? I suppose it would be a function of how serious my need for an answer was. I am fairly certain that the first proposal would not be acceptable. But we would get it right, eventually. > What about $6? > How about competing with MySQL? $6 would be high, but acceptable. The key would be to present my business case in such a way that ISC could see that it was in their interest to have the product deployed. > > > Another point is support and upgrades. These, over time, can > > cost more than the initial purchase price. > It's also a way the license cost could be amortized. Too right. I will soon (when I get around to sending the check) have paid more for support than the original license. -- John Bertoglio Senior Consultant co-laboratory office: 503-538-8691 mobile: 503.330.6713 fax: 503.538.8691 www.co-laboratory.com
