Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

>> my server doesn't have a license to export

You need the DSO licence (A1-DIST-SHR), which is documented in the ALL-IN-1 3.0
Management Guide, section 9.8

>> What license does TEAMLINKS require to be fully functional?

You already have full functionality within your own system.  For marketing
purposes, it was decided to have a separate licence for sharing drawers with
remote systems.

Scott

    
    Incidently, I think the error message is a good one.
    
    "Remote server is not licensed to export information"
    
    Meaning, the remote server needs a license to allow distributed
    sharing. How to enable distributed sharing is in the documentation,
    which is available internally to EVERYONE.
                                     --------
                                     
    Kevin.
    
    

I agree with Jon on the one point that the message could be clearer.  
If I'm not mistaken, the product is looking for a license with a 
particular name, so it should be able to tell you what it is.  It's a 
bit of a hide-and-seek game, like getting a child to say please by 
saying "What do you say?" However, it may be that the remote server is 
the one that would need to supply the exact name of the license; as 
other replies have shown, though, the license name does change, so it 
might be worse to have it tell you the wrong name. 

However, you cannot install and support ALL-IN-1 without a complete 
documentation set.  It is not fair to expect that any product this 
complex will allow for that.  After 12 years, I still read the 
Installation Guide cover-to-cover before beginning a new release. If 
it's not in there, then you have a gripe.  

The field gave up on ALL-IN-1 a couple of years ago, and felt that 
they could pick up what little ALL-IN-1 business there was by using 
people with a little knowledge rather than the experts that were out 
there.  I remember a VMS and UNIX specialist coming to me and saying 
he had some free time Thursday afternoon, and he wanted to use it to 
set up ALL-IN-1 and some MAILbus products on a demo system.  It 
probably sounded reasonable to him to do that.  But you can't blame 
him, since he was thrown into it when management decided that they 
didn't need somebody full time. 

Engineering has made incredible strides over the years to make 
ALL-IN-1 easier to support.  Setting up and adding shared areas used 
to take hours of work; now anybody can do it in a few minutes.  There 
are a hundred little things that would be great to have done, but at 
one time there must have been a thousand.

Ben

    
    Incidently, when ALL-IN-1 V3.0 was shipped we didn't actually know what
    the licence was going to be called. The DSO option is a separate
    "Product" (but no additional code), which underwent its own field test
    period once V3.0 had shipped.
    
    So, unfortunately in this case we could not mention the name of the
    DSO license in the message.
    
    In this case, the documentation with the SSB kit mentions an incorrect
    DSO license name, as it did indeed get changed :-(
    
    
    Kevin.
    
    
    

    RE: .4
    
    So, basically there was a good reason for it.  That is the case the
    vast majority of the time.  Now if we could just eliminate the
    VMSINSTAL message:
    
    * Does this product have an authorization key registered and loaded?
    
    I always want to say "You tell me!"  Since it is often difficult to be
    sure.  Obviously, it is not just ALL-IN-1, and I'm sure there is a good
    reason for it, if only because there is no easy way to get the
    information in a command procedure.  
    
    Ben

    Re .1
    
    I agree, the uselessness of the VMSINSTAL question has annoyed me too.
    And as you say, it's so difficult to check PAK status in a command
    procedure that we resorted to an image in the ALL-IN-1 install code.
    
    I wonder if the idea is to force the installer to make a legal
    committment to being licensed for the product? Clearly the LMF/PAK
    system is trivially avoidable (I won't say how :-) ) but the wording of
    the question may enable us to file suit against people if required.
    
    Graham (Amateur Legal Eagle)