Is there a limit in quantity of FileMaker Pro Standard/Advanced users where connection to a FileMaker Server with Team License is involved?
I mean that if a company choose the FileMaker Server with 5 license for User Connection, I may be the sixth to be connected with my standard FileMaker Pro Advanced with no problem (I work this way at my customer sites) but which is the limit for quantity of user connected, if any, at server side?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a use/licensing question for a third-party software product and not a programming question as defined in the help center guidelines.
The licensing that's been implemented for FM in the past few years has been constantly changing and difficult to understand.
Typically FM developers don't just "code" they often do EVERYTHING from sales to business analysis, back end data design, front end interface design, server implementation, testing and commissioning, documentation and end-user training. Getting the licensing right is a big part of that.
So while it's not a programming question, it's definitely a "stuff I need to know about FileMaker" question.
The limit of 5 pertains to the ones connecting using the team license. For regular Pro/Advanced licenses there is no limit, other than the physical limits imposed by the server software/hardware combination. Check the FileMaker Server specification at filemaker.com for those limits.
Related
I originally posted this question as an 'answer' to:
Can a single company really not use QB API?...Semi Rant
but am reposting, because it is a question.
The original poster and I face a similar problem wanting to use the QBO API for an application designed for a single company. What would be the disadvantage of connecting my app to my QBO account using the intuit development server indefinitely, i.e., never take my app through the production qualification process?
Thank you.
I believe that is possible but then you can use at max 10 developer connections.
As we already mentioned we do not not support custom integrations at this time.
Even we wouldn’t recommend moving you to production as it would cost us $1k per year to security review it, and we would only recover about $60 per year in connection fees.
So, the disadvantage for you will be in terms of number of connections, limited support and your app vulnerability since it has not gone through the security review process.
Please read the policy docs mentioned here:
https://developer.intuit.com/docs/0025_quickbooksapi/0005_introduction_to_quickbooksapi/z_developer_policies_and_guidelines
Edit for the question asked:
When you login into developer.intuit.com, Go to Manage My Apps, then click your app.
You will see the number of connections for that app under Test connections.
It refers to the numbers of company files your app is associated with or has been authorized to access data.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am trying to decide between two development firms. One wants to go with Parse while the other wants to build a backend. I would like to get feedback and reasons why building a backend or using a BaaS such as Parse, Stackmob is better in terms of scalability and performance.
For example let's use SnapChat a highly used app that handles millions of users and data requests. What would happen if a newly created app were to experience a large increase in users and data request. Would the backend be able to handle this? Would I be looking to have it fixed shortly after the increase in users?
Something like Parse.com gives you a lot of value for very little capital investment. With BaaS, all of the gory details of infrastructure management are hidden. Deployment, system capacity issues, system availability, system security, database administration and a myriad of other task simply go away when using a good BaaS. Parse.com for instance, uses Amazon Web Services and elastic load balancing to dynamically add more capacity to the system as usage increases. This is the nirvana of capacity management.
Parse.com is a special kind of BaaS. Parse.com's intended purpose is to be a light-weight back-end back-end for mobile apps. I believe Parse.com is a very good mobile backend-as-a-service (MBaaS - link to a Forrester article on the subject).
That said, there are times when Parse.com is not the right solution. Estimate the number of users for the application and the number of HTTP requests and average user would send in a day. Parse.com charges by the number of transactions. The Pro Plan has these limits:
15 million HTTP requests per month
Burst limit of 40 requests per second
Many small transactions can result in a higher cost to the app owner. For example, if there are 4,500 users, each sending 125 HTTP requests to Parse.com per day, then you are already looking at 16,850,000 requests every 30 days. Parse.com also offers a higher level of service called Parse Enterprise. Details about this plan are not published.
The services provided by a BaaS/MBaaS save much time and energy on the part of the application developer, but impose some constraints. For example, the response time of Parse.com might be too slow for your needs. Unless you upgrade to their Enterprise plan, you have no control over response times. You currently have no control over where your app is hosted (Parse apps are presently run out of Amazon's data centers in Virginia, I believe).
The BaaS providers I have looked at do not provide quality-of-service metrics. Even if they did, there is no community agreement on what metrics would be meaningful. You just get what you get and hope it is good enough for your needs.
An application is a good candidate for an MBaaS if :
It is simple or the application logic can run entirely on the client (phone, tablet...)
It is impossible to estimate the number of users or the number of users could be huge.
You don't want a big upfront capital investment.
You don't want to hire infrastructure specialists to handle capacity/security/data/recovery/network engineering.
Your application does not have strict response time requirements.
Parse's best use case is the iPhone developer who wrote a game and needs to store the user's high scores, but knows nothing about servers. That said, complex application like Hipmunk are using Parse. Have a look at Parse.com's portfolio of case studies. Can you imagine your application in that portfolio or is it very different from those apps?
Even if a BaaS is not the right solution, a PaaS or IaaS might be. Look at Rackspace and AWS. In this day and age, buying hardware and running a data center is tough to justify.
BaaS providers like apiomat or parse have to handle the requests of thousands of apps. Every app can have lots of users there. The providers are forced to make the system absolutely secure and scalable because if there are any issues about one of those points it will be the end of their business... Building scalable secure backends on your own is not as easy a you would expect. Those companys mentioned above have invested some man-years in that.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
A medical practice has approached us about using Filemaker as a fully-fledged EMR system with a HEAVY emphasis on using iPads to enter patient records, photos, digital signatures etc which can obviously be accessed on desktops as well. Ultimately they would like such a system to replace their current EMR and takeover all billing operations, patient scheduling and so forth. They only use Macs in their practice.
We have very little experience with Filemaker but found this discussing the Pros and Cons of it however it seems that Filemaker has come a long way since 2009 when that question was asked...
So overall I'm just trying to work out if Filemaker is suitable for such an application or what would be the pros and cons of using a combination of FMP12 and FM Go.
(Sorry if I've done anything wrong - first question...)
Thanks!
As a FileMaker Developer myself, I would say go for it. I agree with Mikhail - You WILL see results faster than any other platform. You can make changes yourself easily and live or you can get a FileMaker developer - just like you would need to get a developer for any application.
With an off-the-shelf application, they tend to be quite inflexible, however I am sure there are systems out there that allow some customisation.
FileMaker is a very capable product. We have written many applications for vertical markets, such as law firms and even a Harley Street plastic surgeon who gathers patient data on an iPad and even sketches the suggested surgery on a picture of the patient.
For those who think FileMaker is a baby, have a look at http://www.businessmancrm.com - this is a full ERP system used all over the world. This is not an advert, but a demonstration of what is possible with FileMaker.
Dollar for dollar, FileMaker will win hands down... and when it comes to time frames, there is no contest. We are open minded - We constantly look for other products to develop applications for ourselves and customers and we have not found anything more viable just yet.
Pros:
Extremely quick environment
Cross platform
Integrate other SQL data sources into application
ODBC Support
Remote Access
Can be run from a USB stick if needed!
Thousands of developers around the world
Large community
FileMaker Inc. have made a profit every single quarter since existence, therefore are stable and do have the backing of Apple!
Reasonable Cost
Make changes yourself
Easy to backup, supports incremental backup
Easy to secure and encrypt data on a network
Supports terminal server
FMGo is free
Cons
High level language (not low level with layout object control) - However does support plugins
Requires FileMaker client (unless a web application/interface is built in PHP or using IWP - Instant Web Publishing)
Proprietary Database (however can easily link into MySQL, MSSQL and Oracle)
Honestly, not worth it.
It's a very clunky front-end for a database.
If you do decide to pick it up your basically stuck with paying a Filemaker developer for the rest of its existence.
One of my clients at the moment has had it for the last ~6+? years after only being with them for the last 8 months i'm trying very hard to push them away from it and onto a newer system.
I can suggest looking at Mastercare EMR, Profile and MMEX.
FileMaker is perfectly capable of it, of course, and I expect you'll be getting first results much faster than with any other approach, especially with the iPad. There's quite a few EMRs out there written in FileMaker. There are downsides, of course; it was always targeted to end users so it ended up fairly inconventional from a common programmer's point of view. Many programmers dislike this. Being end-user it suffers from many simplifications (well, not exactly suffers, actually; this makes development faster as there's fewer choices), but people always want something special so there's a huge number of workarounds to overcome these simplifications. These workarounds vary from relatively harmless to very hairy ones.
For example, to sign documents on iPad you need to add a webviewer control pointed to a generated HTML page via the "data:" protocol. The page is going to have a JavaScript that captures user's touches, paints them on a canvas, and serializes this into a string. Later a script will capture the string, store it in a FileMaker field, and change the generated HTML to use this string so the JavaScript can redraw the signature. This one is relatively simple and since the functionality cannot be obtained in any other way, it's in wide use; there's even a commercial module for around $300. A complex app may consists of dozens of such workarounds; anyone who is not a FileMaker developer won't be able to understand why you need a webviewer to capture a signature or why you use a strange contraption of invisible tabs to display what looks like a simple pop-up list. I.e. it's not like you read a book and work from there; be ready to read quite a few blogs and frequent forums and mailing lists.
That said, it's a good product nonetheless with unique capabilities (that iPhone/iPad client, for one); paired with a good developer it can be very powerful.
Having developed an EMR system at a recent position for 3 years, I can tell you from experience that the requirements for a true EMR system may quickly outgrow the scope of what is easy to do in FileMaker. A few really big, important EMR features come to mind immediately:
Insurance Eligibility verification: is there going to be a way to hit all of the major payers' web services or a third party aggregator to verify insurance eligibility from the iPad?
Insurance Card OCR: sure you can snap a photo of an insurance card, but now you have back office staff typing that information in from an image. We implemented OCR of insurance cards in our EMR and it was a huge cost and time saver.
Security / Privacy concerns: HIPAA compliance is a big deal, and is FileMaker suitably transparent to be compliant? Is there any way to audit who looks at a record? How is the data transferred across the wire?
E-prescribing: All modern EMR's support electronic prescriptions, which carries a complex set of rules and implementation details along with it, I would want to be certain FileMaker could be integrated with an e-prescribing gateway before proceeding.
My main concern with using any off the shelf, cross platform tool to approach a problem as big and complex as an EMR would be getting painted into a corner down the road, having invested a bunch of time and money into a solution that may leave you unable to implement a feature or requirement, whereas paying the up front price of developing a native iOS app (and web apps and whatever else you need to integrate with) would eliminate that possibility, but obviously cost more.
we are developing an anti-virus, I'm trying to find out how can we tell the operating system -windows XP in this case- that our software is an anti-virus. I want that the OS recognize our software as an anti-virus and the security center list it.
You have to sign an NDA to get the information. Quoth MSDN forums:
To register an antivirus product:
Must be a member of the Microsoft
Virus Initiative.
OR
Must meet the following three
requirements:
Must have a standard NDA with Microsoft.
Must be a member of AVPD or a member of EICAR or must sign and
adhere to a code of ethics relating to
malware research and malware handling.
Must meet independent testing requirements:
a. If you are using your own antimalware engine, you must pass
VB100 and meet at least one of the
following:
ICSA Labs - Pass
West Coast Labs - Pass
AV-Test.de – 90% or higher
AV-Comparitives – 90% or higher
b. If you are packaging an antimalware engine from another
company:
The company who developed the engine must meet the
above requirements.
In order to be able to register an AV product with Windows Security Center, you need a private API from Microsoft or, starting with Windows 10 build 1809 you need to register a Protected Service. In order to do both these things, you need to be member in the MVI.
Just for the record, a few years later now, the requirements have changed a bit.
First of all, this is the new link:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/intelligence/virus-initiative-criteria
The criteria have also changed and they are more complex.
Assuming you have a product build with a 3rd party SDK, here are the requirements to become a member:
Offer an antimalware or antivirus product that is one of the following:
Your organization's own creation.
Developed by using an SDK (engine and other components) from another MVI Partner company and your organization adds a custom UI and/or other functionality.
Have your own malware research team unless you build a product based on an SDK.
3. Be active and have a positive reputation in the antimalware industry.
Activity can include participation in industry conferences or being reviewed in an industry standard report such as AV Comparatives, OPSWAT or Gartner.
Be willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Microsoft.
Be willing to sign a program license agreement.
6. Be willing to adhere to program requirements for antimalware apps. These requirements define the behavior of antimalware apps necessary to ensure proper interaction with Windows.
7. Submit your app to Microsoft for periodic performance testing.
8. Certified through independent testing by at least one industry standard organization.
The most hard to achieve requirements are marked bold.
If you want more details what these things require, check here.
Best,
Sorin
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2009/06/19/microsoft-bizspark-serving-15-000-startups-and-counting.aspx
Any recommendations on this topic ?
I heard about this a while back and thought that the "Network Partner" requirement was a little weird. Now, you don't have to do that. You can make your request directly to Microsoft without a network partner.
I think the network partner idea is good but it's poorly implemented. They do nothing to help introduce startups to partners that are willing to help.
I went ahead and signed up for the service a few weeks ago. You basically get a full MSDN subscription for free. That means you can get legitimate versions of Visual Studio, Expression, even operating systems for free.
I find it very helpful to have access to various Windows operating systems so I can test my software (I run a software startup, not a web startup) on various platforms.
After 3 years you just pay $100.
I would say, yes, it's worth it.
I know several people enrolled in this program. As long as you meet the requirements it seems like a good deal.
1. The startup must be less than three years old,
2. The startup company's revenue must be less than $1 million,
3. If the startup goes public, you are out of the program.
You do have to pay a $100 program fee but that is not due until you exit the program.
My personal experience and comment on this for startups is that microsoft are incredibly unhelpful, terminally slow in responding and answering emails and applications, there is no way to speak to a real person... no phone numbers, no address, no contact names... They specify simple criteria on the web site, but when you apply they say you are not eligible... and don't give a reason, if you then push and say why? the response you get is obvious that they have not even looked at your website let alone your business and what you are trying to do. So, as a result, I feel that they are offering the service for purely for good PR, but are actually in no way actually wanting to help startups, I have been 6 weeks emailing every few days, they have an auto responded which says they will answer in 2 business days and its been 6 weeks.... So I am getting nowhere... I don't think microsoft really want to help startups at all . Very disappointed and annoyed with them. I can't see how this approach to interacting with startups will work for them? My recommendation would be to pick somebody else and avoid Microsoft.
So I just went through the process of signing up and I have to say that if you are start-up building in the .Net stack then BizSpark is a no brainer. I especially love the free Azure credit and the exemption that you can use the benefit for production purposes whereas normal MSDN users can only use it for dev/testing purposes. This shows that Microsoft gets it and at this stage of the game it really helps our little initiative.
Throw into the mix Visual Studio online that allows up to 5 devs free and suddenly its really amazing to build something using MS tech if you are a small start-up.
Regarding the slowness, I initially had the same problem after signing up with my support emails being ignored and all that. After a few weeks on a whim I sent a hail mary to my country's BizSpark contact detail instead of the .com one and that made all the difference. I got an amazing response from the local team being phoned within a few hours of dropping the mail. By the end of the day my application was approved.
My only suggestion to Microsoft would be to throw in an Office365 benefit to host your start-up Emails since then you quite literally can start a 1-5 man company with zero infrastructure and tool overhead and obviously MS wins in the medium to long run since products get developed in their stack.
+1 Microsoft.