Hi,

I recently installed FM8 AS on a Mac OS X 10.4. System. The db access works so far and IWP is working.

But now I'd like to "hide" databases, so they aren't shown on the index-page. Like hinding tham while browsing the DB server with FM clients. I'd like to give the names of special databases only to some users, so that thay can open the db by IWP.

Is there such an option? If so, where? Or is there an other work around? Thanks for any hints!

Edited April 4, 200619 yr by Guest

Hi reinicke

There is an option so databases are not show in the IWP home page.

Open the databases in FileMaker Pro or Advanced, not running from server. Go to the Instant Web Publishing Settings, under sharing, and in the list of Currently open files select the file you wish to hide. On the right of this list the last option is "Don't display in Instant web Publishing homepage", tick this option on for all the files you do not want displayed.

I hope this makes sence.

Orlando

Well that's certainly a crappy workaround.

That's not a workaround--that's how it works. Why is it crappy to offer a file-by-file control of the files displayed under IWP???

Its crappy if you're doing web publishing form the server.

There should be some form of control on the server end.

In the case of IWP, the computer that IWP runs from **IS** the server. IWP is sort of a poor man's web server--it is not meant to serve as a full-blown web presence platform--that's what FM Server is for (at least as far as I understand; I haven't used FMS myself).

Or you can host it thru ODBC link to the DB and use ASP to interact with it.

Sample:

Serial : AZLT633004AQ

URL : http://achieva1.dyndns.org

You know, with all this complaining about IWP, one has to wonder whether it's more trouble than it's worth and whether FMI should just do away with it.

Steven

Steven--

The same could be said about security (heheheh)

Seriously, though, I think the IWP issue has really come up because FM tightened its licensing in recent versions. It used to be possible for small businesses (<5 machines) on a small LAN to share their FM database, each with an unlicensed copy of the app installed. With that locked down, small business owners (who can't afford $150 a machine for 4 machines) are trying to use IWP to work around it, with a host of new problems.

I'd be curious to know what FM's sales have been in the various versions. Have they seen an increase in FMS? Has the licensing change helped their bottom line or hurt it?

David

I'd be curious to know what FM's sales have been in the various versions

What I am able to tell you about this is that approximately 66% of FMI's sales are for Volume Licenses. Of that 66%, approximately 95% or greater include some version of FileMaker Server. The company has been profitable every quarter since its inception.

Standard business language here about past results, future predictions, etc. etc.

Steven

I wasn't implying anything about FM, its business models, proprietary information, financial performance, etc. I was simply stating a curiousity into what the effects of FM's licensing changes were or might have been. That 66% figure, for example--does that represent an increase in percentage, or not? If it is an increase (I wondered), to what extent might that increase be a result of the licensing change...

David

I wasn't implying anything about FM, its business models, proprietary information, financial performance, etc.

Didn't think that you were. Here's what I can tell you.

Volume License Agreement (VLA) sales have increased over time both in dollar amount and as a percentage of all sales. The shift to server based web publishing in FileMaker 7 was primarily driven by technical considerations and by the desire to have real and robust web publishing capability.

I believe that FMI has done as good a job as it can balancing the development, technical, and revenue factors between the Pro client and the various web technologies, especially Instant Web Publishing.

I don't believe that the process of having a copy of FMP client serve as a "web server" is really very viable. It certainly isn't robust or stable.

You do raise good questions however about the business model. These questions are a frequent topic of discussion in many quarters, including presumably within the walls of the company.

Thanks.

Steven