Bob -I think we can all accept that some computers are never allowed to be connected to the internet, and can understand the problem and frustration you're feeling by not being able to register on such machines. Don't assume that anyone was judging your *character* by commenting about your reply — after all, email is a very difficult medium for inferring intent. However, you should be aware that the parts which made it sound "snarky" (which I agree with) are not just in the mind of one person:
— "There are things called intranets" can easily be taken as an insult to the intelligence of the authors. Assume they're well aware of intranets, what they're used for, etc. In addition, one's definition of intranets being "connected to the internet" or not can be hazy — in my company, our intranet is behind a firewall, but anyone inside can connect to the internet at large.
— "So wake up guys!" seems like an overt criticism, and doesn't seem to consider the fact that the devs are prioritizing as best they know how and balancing a lot of issues. It's great that Macs are being used in this type of protected environment, but I would venture to guess it's a non-issue for most users.
All that being said, I think that offline registration is a very good idea. The vast majority of users will be honest about using their license only as intended, and one could entirely do away with a registration server at all. (Remember, we're talking about Mac users here, and OS X doesn't even have a license code — you could technically install 10.6 on any Mac that supports it, yet people still buy family packs.) I imagine that people could conceivably use Subversion completely offline altogether, by using file:// repository URLs. I think all users could benefit from a more trusting, less centralized registration system. And judging by the frequency with which registration complaints crop up on this list, it would make life easier for our friends at Picodev/Sofa, too. ;-)
- Quinn On Sep 28, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Bob Futrelle wrote:
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 thefirst application in the world that requires a remote connection to "activate"...Constructive criticism is one thing, that comment comes across a just plainmean.Perhaps an organization that would like to use a really nice tool, such as Versions, could "temporarily" provide connectivity to said system (s), sothat an application could be "activated". - AndrewNote: 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 saidnetwork, 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 theywon't (can't) be using Versions. So wake up guys! - Bob
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
