Jerry Bostick ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: Eero,
: How about if i RPMCreate a process and communicate with it via
: NETIPC.
: No terminal opened on the remote (not even a VT).  In fact there is
: not even a CI process on the remote.
: So using your description, i could have a 50 user Lic. and have 500
: users accessing an Image DB via an RPM process and be ligit ;>o
 
- RPM is a kind a resource-hog since it creates an additional JSMAIN, CI
  RPMDAD and a DSSERVER process to get your user-process created... bummer...
  However, I think you're right and for sure by using client-server approach
  with no fopens to terminals one can avoid hitting the user limit.  Then,
  maybe you should be forewarned - I'm not aware of anything being done at
  the moment on user licence handling code... however, there's been enough
  debate on it recently so that HP may revise the current policy on how to
  count users towards user limit...
 
  Several people have felt that a user from one PC/workstation should only
  be counted once no matter how many logons he/she does and no matter how
  many processes he/she spawns...  I'm not sure that I agree with this
  since one of the important things about user licences is to make sure
  the system has the horsepower to handle the situation - specially given
  that HP has some performance guarantee program... (and yes of course
  someone will point out that HP also collects lots of money with it).
 
  One can argue that despite of several sessions and processes launched,
  the user still has only one keyboard and can interact with one session
  at time...  well, who tells not to feed every session with some script
  so that the one workstation user actually presents a load of 10 active
  users to the system...
 
  The concept of "1 user = 1 terminal" is nowadays outdated and maybe
  HP should re-consider how to count users - specially given that
  client/server applications seem to be the way the world is going and
  it makes lot of sense as well.  However, these guys don't need terminal
  FOPENS depending how the application has been coded... as such, the user
  licencing code will probably have to change to take this into account
  somehow...
 
  Well, I'm rambling here... time to get back to work.  Note that none of
  this is HP's official position on it.. just my thoughts.
 
:-) Eero Laurila - HP CSY Networking lab.