[p4] Multiple clients - single user

[Didster]

Thanks everyone for all your comments.

I must say, I also think its great perfoce based their model on trust
- and as may have pointed out - it works well.  Of course I think this
only works because of the quality of the actual product.

I'm not sure I agree with the people that have said that you "can't
track who made a change".  In most companies, certainly all the ones I
have ever worked for, every member of staff has their own PC.  If you
take a "name your client spec after your user" approach, and all share
one user called shared, if Joe Bloggs submits a change, it will appear
to come from "shared at JOEBLOGGS" - if John Doe does, "shared at JOHNDOE" -
still provides trackability - all be it in an obscure way.



On 6/15/07, Paquet, Philippe <Philippe.Paquet at sierra.com> wrote:
> Additionally, a big thing that you would be missing with that kind of
> setup is having proper names attached to the change list. Being able to
> know who has done what is extremely valuable for a team.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com
> [mailto:perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com] On Behalf Of Didster
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 3:11 AM
> To: Greg Whitfield
> Cc: paul goffin; Robert Cowham; perforce-user at perforce.com
> Subject: Re: [p4] Multiple clients - single user
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanks very much for all your responses.
>
> Just to be clear, my query was out of curiosity more than anything -
> we have already purchased a licence for 9 users which covers our
> current 4 perm staff + any temps + a bit of expansion.
>
> At our company, we have been forced to use a product called Accurev
> for the last 3 years for source control [it's truly dreadful] and the
> cost of 9 user licences for perforce was worth every penny.
>
> But...  Not every "company" in the world takes software theft
> seriously - and it just seemed to me that it's a strange decision to
> make the license based on per-user rather than per-client when sharing
> a user technically is possible and presents no problems from a
> functional point of view - hence my question.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On 6/15/07, Greg Whitfield <Greg.Whitfield at lightworkdesign.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I loved the story of a vendor whose product was secured by a dongle
> > read at
> > >start up. After a support conversation they realised that a certain
> > customer
> > >was using the same license multiple times. It eventually turned out
> > that one
> > >chap at the customer had the job of cycling round between branch
> > offices with
> > >said dongle every morning, getting the software running on various
> > machines!
> >
> > Can't have been my software then - many moons ago when I wrote the
> > dongle checker for a program, it kept checking at random intervals,
> and
> > would not allow things like file-save's without a dongle.
> >
> > Still, a job title of "Dongle Cycler" has a certain ring to it :)
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com
> http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Vivendi Games- http://www.vivendigames.com :
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material
> of Vivendi Games which is for the exclusive use of the individual
> designated above as the recipient. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
> or other use of, or  taking of any action in reliance upon, this information
> by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
> received this in error, please contact immediately the sender by returning
> e-mail and delete the material from any computer. If you are not the
> specified recipient, you are hereby notified that all disclosure,
> reproduction, distribution or action taken on the basis of this message
> is prohibited.
>