Sorry, but not every company is willing to go to that effort. Many government and military installations have strict rules about such things, and are loathe to make exceptions.
My comment was in no way intended to be "snarky". I was just pointing out the great strictures that organizations place on connectivity, given the serious breaches of security that occur on a daily basis. Any notion that my comment was "snarky" or "mean" are in your mind. Certainly not in my mind or, I'm sure, in the minds of many other people. There is nothing mean-spirited in my character -- my acquaintances and colleagues would attest to that. Nuff said. - Bob On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Andrew Gehring <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, but this comes across as a rather "snarky" comment. This isn't the > first application in the world that requires a remote connection to > "activate"... > Constructive criticism is one thing, that comment comes across a just plain > mean. > Perhaps an organization that would like to use a really nice tool, such as > Versions, could "temporarily" provide connectivity to said system(s), so > that an application could be "activated". > - Andrew > Note: I work for a organization that has isolated networks, that are not > allowed to communication "outside". Systems are built-out with the necessary > tools, scanned, then placed on the network. I am using Versions on one said > network, without issue... > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Bob Futrelle <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> There are things called intranets that are big in big companies. They >> don't want them connected to the internet. A lot of code sharing can >> go on inside companies using intranets only. But it looks as if they >> won't (can't) be using Versions. >> >> So wake up guys! >> >> - Bob >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Sofa <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Kevin and Stephen, >> > >> > It's unfortunate yes. But remember that Versions is an application >> > that is build on top of a technology that assumes collaboration over >> > inter- and intranet. So making part of the application need an >> > internet connection isn't that strange. That's not to say we won't >> > implement something like this in the future. >> > >> > Regards, >> > -- >> > Jasper >> > the versions team >> > >> > On Sep 28, 5:01 pm, Kevin Powick <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sep 28, 3:52 am, Vincent Robbesom <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > We do not have an off line registration mode, it is really necessary >> >> > to get each machine online for registration. >> >> >> >> Wow, that's almost unbelievable. There are a lot of environments in >> >> which machines simply cannot have Internet access. >> >> >> >> I guess with a niche product on a relatively small platform this is >> >> not something you run into a lot, yet it's surprising that you have no >> >> provision for it. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Kevin Powick >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
