[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alex's solution doesn't require special treatment for disaster >> recovery and/or planning, and as such is a valid answer to the > I'm not sure I understand this. I would assume that any software (or, > for that matter, data) of any substantial importance, worthy of being > deployed on a server, does include disaster planning (and recovery > plans, in particular) as a routine part of server-side deployment > (regular backups with copies off-site, etc etc).
To recap, I asked the question "how do provide software that is protected but doesn't require special treatment in disaster recovery and preparedness planning?" I didn't raise the issue of server deployment in light of this, but had earlier pointed it out as a good solution to the general issue of copy protection. This resulted in my beinng asked if I prefered your solution to an alternative that involved local storage. Anything on your server doesn't require any special treatment in my planning. I might want to check what you promise to provide and how well you live up to those promises as part of evaluating your service, but that's a different issue. So "Put the software on a server and let them run it there" is a valid answer to my question. > So, I may perhaps be misunderstanding what you're saying about "my > solution"...? I hope I clarified what I meant. <mike -- Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
