Re: Pricing model for 5.4
2007-02-14 09:20:03
I was a little surprised at Steve's cautious response to my
post. Looking over it I think I understand it now, and it makes me
want to emphasize that I'm not advocating just ignoring the issue
("Don't worry about it too much"). Focus on the "too much", not the
"don't worry". :)
If you develop a measure by which you understand your licensure, (and
good lord I hope it's automated instead of manual spreadsheet
nonsense) then apply it and pay by it. Operate in good faith, but
don't angst yourself too much about getting the next significant
figure right. We're accustomed to being able to report activity to 10
sig-figs: (TB measures, down to the byte).. it feels odd to have 2.
If you try for 4, you'll go insane, and you still won't get it.
To bring the conversation back around, if we had a better licensure
measure in the server, we could at least have consistent numbers... :)
- Allen S. Rout
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Pricing model for 5.4, (continued)
- Re: Pricing model for 5.4, Remco Post
- Re: Pricing model for 5.4, Allen S. Rout
- Re: Pricing model for 5.4, Kelly Lipp
- Re: Pricing model for 5.4, Prather, Wanda
- Re: Pricing model for 5.4, Steven Harris
- Re: Pricing model for 5.4, Allen S. Rout
- Re: Pricing model for 5.4,
Allen S. Rout <=
- Re: dsmc -nodename, Ibán Bernaldo de Quirós y Márquez
Re: VTL's (looking for info), Leigh Reed
Re: VTL's (looking for info), Roger Deschner
|
|
|