Re: Upgrade woes -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:55 PM, <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If, however, they are current on maintenance and the vendor wants a huge
fee just to transfer hardware (same tier) then I say "Shame on the
vendor". This nefarious practice is more common in the EDI realm.

A lot of the software licensing in the i world is IMHO ridiculous. CPU
licensing based on Cores instead of Sockets? That's just ripping of
customers.

Add to that most software vendors license on a per-machine basis,
instead of using a much more reasonable per-installed instance base,
and making activation (change of hardware/base os) an automated task
without manual key handling or even fees.

This isn't the 80ies anymore. Multicore CPUs are the norm - licensing
based on number of cores is almost criminal, IMHO. I can understand
licensing on number of sockets, because this is where you'll the
difference between a small business and an enterprise, but most
software should be based upon much more reasonable factors like
concurrent or named users/devices or transactions/month.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.