[480] in winnt
Re: IS announces availability of FileMaker 5 software
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin M. Cunningham)
Tue Feb 15 11:24:07 2000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <v04020a00b4cf18ef8760@[18.152.1.50]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000215093122.00ab6de0@PO12.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:22:20 -0500
To: Dave Broderick <djbroder@mit.edu>
From: "Kevin M. Cunningham" <kcunning@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Kevin M. Cunningham" <kcunning@mit.edu>, itpartners@mit.edu,
macpartners@mit.edu, ntpartners@mit.edu, infosys@mit.edu,
aac-aoquery@mit.edu
At 9:31 AM -0500 2/15/2000, Dave Broderick wrote:
> Kevin,
> Web publishing under FMPro 5 is limited to a *very* small number of users in a twenty-four hour
> period-- *very* small. The word is that, to have the same web publishing capabilites that you had in
> FMPro 4, you need to buy the "unlimited" version of this product, which costs a lot of money.
>
> Also, "Server" still does not publish to the Web.
>
> All users must upgrade to 5.0.
>
> I just wanted to say that I think Filemaker is being really greedy. The unlimited version of this product
> probably has less lines of code in it than the limited version. They actually had to add lines of code to
> restrict the number of hits.
Dave,
Thanks for bringing this issue to the attention of the various concerned parties. Although I do mention the "Unlimited" issue in my announcement (and point to an extended discussion of the issue -- see esp. http://web.mit.edu/is/products/vsls/mitfmpro/issues.html), it was easy to miss it or think it was inconsequential. Thanks for bringing appropriate emphasis to the issue.
Some points about your note:
- Yes, web publishing in the version 5 base product is VERY limited: only 10 unique IP addresses in a 12-hour period. In practice, that isn't very much at all. (In theory, it might serve a work group publishing data only to itself via the web, but that's it.) For any more traffic, you MUST use Unlimited -- MUST, that is, IF you upgrade to version 5. But that's the question here -- should you upgrade? For many sites, especially those that don't use web publishing, the answer will still be "yes".
- Yes, Server does not publish to the web. To say "*still* does not publish", however, implies that FileMaker eventually intends that Server will have web publishing capabilities. Everything I've heard from FileMaker Inc. implies that they do NOT intend this. (I don't want people to develop inappropriate expectations of Server.)
- To say "All users must upgrade to 5.0" needs to be clarified in this context. You mean that ALL users must upgrade to version 5 if ANY user upgrades to 5 (more precisely, if the DATABASES are converted to version 5), and that's true. But it does not mean everyone must always upgrade to 5 -- a group could decide to leave EVERYTHING at an earlier version.
The key is that all users of a database must be at the same version of software: either all users must upgrade to version 5, or all must remain at earlier versions. (In the latter case, it's probably a good idea to upgrade all users to version 4.1 anyway to get consistency, even though version 3 can open version 4 databases, etc.)
The decision whether to upgrade the databases and the users to version 5 is therefore a GROUP decision. For example, if a key user cannot upgrade to version 5 (for instance, the user's computer doesn't have enough memory), then the group as a whole should not upgrade until that user can upgrade (e.g., until the user's computer has a memory upgrade).
It is very important for groups to understand this need to coordinate all their users. (That's why we're distributing the software to group representatives rather than individual users.) Deciding whether to upgrade to version 5 is not a simple matter, and I hope each group gives the decision the consideration it requires.
By the way, installing version 5 of FileMaker does not automatically delete earlier versions of the software. A user who needs to access both FileMaker 4 databases and FileMaker 5 databases could in fact keep both programs on her computer. BUT: this has implications on how many licenses are needed -- if you need to keep both version 4.1 and version 5, you need 2 licenses! MIT has a volume license, not a site license, so there is NOT an unlimited number of licenses available under our contract. Therefore, we encourage users and work groups to pick one version of the software rather than hedge their bets (and run out the licenses).
- Whether FileMaker Inc. is being greedy or just pragmatic is not for me to say. (I've seen many arguments both ways on the various FileMaker mailing lists I'm on.) Regardless, it is probably fair to say that IS's negotiated volume license will cost MIT less in the long run than hundreds of individual purchases would have, notwithstanding the unavoidable Unlimited "tax" you point out. (This of course assumes we wanted to keep up with new FileMaker versions in the first place -- and that we wanted to stick with FileMaker software at all, itself an interesting issue.) This is not to say that FileMaker's pricing schemes are laudable, only that, given them, we are doing our best as a community to operate with some fiscal prudence.
Again, Dave, thanks for your note. This upgrade of FileMaker involves potentially difficult group decisions, and you have helped emphasize this.
--Kevin Cunningham,
Product Release Coordinator for FileMaker at MIT
