# FileMaker Go Released



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

FileMaker released FileMaker Go today. It is FileMaker running on either an iPad or an iPhone/iPod Touch. Priced at $39.99 for the iPad and $19.99 for the iPhone/iPod Touch.

It allows you to open most .FP7 files and add, view, edit, and search FM records. Database files can be transferred via iTunes directly to the device, or you can open a file being hosted by FM Server or FM Pro (in shared mode) using either Wifi or 3G. 

I've downloaded and tried the iPad version and opened a few of my customer's files using Wifi. So far no major glitches although we've (FM Development community) have been warned that some script steps will not work, some scripts may show odd behaviour, and 3rd party plug-ins, external calculation functions, and ODBC drivers will not work. As a FM developer, we'll have to test all database files and their functionality to ensure that it will run under FM Go. 

I've only had it for an hour but the initial tests I've been giving it seem to be very positive.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Thanks for the report!


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

I have been dying for this news since the iPhone came out!

I can't wait to try it, however I hope Apple comes up with some sort of app management and licensing tool for business users with a large number of devices since that could get quite tedious.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2010)

I find it incredibly annoying that the iPad app, which is most likely the exact same code base as the iPhone app with different interface files is twice the price. Not that I use Filemaker any longer, I swore off of it years ago, but it's terrible to see this trend continuing. The logic of "The screen is bigger therefore you must pay twice as much to run our app! Muahhahaahaa." doesn't bode well with me.

Lastly, if it can't do 3rd party plug-ins, no external calculation functions, ODBC and it may or may not have problems with script steps .... I dunno. Sounds like they want you to drink the special kool-aid to me. To me with those pieces missing it means that the app is not ready for commercial release. I hate paying to be a beta tester for anything, just to have to pay again for the 2.0 release (and continue beta testing).

For those that need it desperately I guess it's ok, but all of these things set off big warning bells for me ... and is the primary reason I swore off Filemaker years ago. They have done a pretty much half-a$$ed job of things for many years with no signs of any real improvement at the core level of it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I keep coming back to Filemaker because I'm not the programmer type. I tried Fox Pro ions ago, then 4D many years ago, but it took a page and a half of programming to do what I could do in FileMaker with one click. I never did get any good at grasping the 4D language.

I did dabble in MySQL and PHP...same result. No frigging patience or grasp of the programming. This however I should revisit.

So, idiots like me, keep returning to FM.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Scripts don't seem to be a problem, but it can't open linked (not containerized) files. The "file:///" links are opened as webpages in Safari. Which obviously doesn't work. Another issue for me is the inability of safari on the iPad to open password protected FTP links


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2010)

kps said:


> I keep coming back to Filemaker because I'm not the programmer type. I tried Fox Pro ions ago, then 4D many years ago, but it took a page and a half of programming to do what I could do in FileMaker with one click. I never did get any good at grasping the 4D language.
> 
> I did dabble in MySQL and PHP...same result. No frigging patience or grasp of the programming. This however I should revisit.
> 
> So, idiots like me, keep returning to FM.


Don't get me wrong ... FM is fine for simple stuff, but not so much for more serious database work. It's a few steps up from spreadsheets but it has definite limits in it's capabilities when you start to have more detailed requirements.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

mguertin said:


> I find it incredibly annoying that the iPad app, which is most likely the exact same code base as the iPhone app with different interface files is twice the price. Not that I use Filemaker any longer, I swore off of it years ago, but it's terrible to see this trend continuing. The logic of "The screen is bigger therefore you must pay twice as much to run our app! Muahhahaahaa." doesn't bode well with me.
> 
> Lastly, if it can't do 3rd party plug-ins, no external calculation functions, ODBC and it may or may not have problems with script steps .... I dunno. Sounds like they want you to drink the special kool-aid to me. To me with those pieces missing it means that the app is not ready for commercial release. I hate paying to be a beta tester for anything, just to have to pay again for the 2.0 release (and continue beta testing).
> 
> For those that need it desperately I guess it's ok, but all of these things set off big warning bells for me ... and is the primary reason I swore off Filemaker years ago. They have done a pretty much half-a$$ed job of things for many years with no signs of any real improvement at the core level of it.


It all depends on how the database was developed. I've been developing using FM for over 15 years now and I've never used a 3rd party plug-in in any of the solutions I've developed. Mainly because I don't trust them. There are some good ones but I've seen too many things over my 25 years in the business when it comes to 3rd party plug-ins for anything. Companies decide not to bother updating their plug-in when a new release comes out, leaving a customer stranded with an old version of something. 

As for script steps, it's simply a warning saying that there are certain script steps that can't be supported (i.e. can't run Applescript, can't print, can't save records as Excel spreadsheet, etc.) on the iPad platform at this time, so a developer must revisit their scripts and adjust them if the script has the potential to be run on the iPad. It's not that FM Go can't do it because they made a half-a$$ application, the iPad platform can't support it. 

I have had a love-hate relationship going with FileMaker all along, but I must say that in recent releases, they have made significant improvements. It's not perfect, but the product is considerably better than it was even 3-4 years ago.

The biggest thing to remember is that this is an iPad we are talking about, not a full desktop/laptop. Used properly, this will dramatically change the landscape when it comes to business development. This offers an incredible amount of potential for developing solutions that haven't been considered previously.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

mguertin said:


> Don't get me wrong ... FM is fine for simple stuff, but not so much for more serious database work. It's a few steps up from spreadsheets but it has definite limits in it's capabilities when you start to have more detailed requirements.


What would be the alternative? I'm curious to hear what you would use in a business environment to handle a database solution for anything from a single user to a 100 person office?


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

mguertin said:


> Don't get me wrong ... FM is fine for simple stuff, but not so much for more serious database work. It's a few steps up from spreadsheets but it has definite limits in it's capabilities when you start to have more detailed requirements.


Sorry, but that's complete and utter BS. It's not Oracle, sure, but you know what? 99% of businesses don't need Oracle either. There are lots corporations, big and small, using FileMaker Pro for many "serious" database applications.


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2010)

hayesk said:


> Sorry, but that's complete and utter BS. It's not Oracle, sure, but you know what? 99% of businesses don't need Oracle either. There are lots corporations, big and small, using FileMaker Pro for many "serious" database applications.


Yes there are a lot of corporations using Filemaker for "serious" database applications, and I feel their pain -- I spent years supporting them and I've built my fair share of FM databases myself over the years, so I'd like to think that I'm very familiar with the platform.

FM is most assuredly not Oracle, but I'm not saying you need Oracle to do serious database work. What you do need is a database backend that supports things like multiple relations (Good luck with that with FM without jumping through some serious hoops) and things like the ability to export and import very important things like the scripts that define all the logic and intricacies required -- and while I'm on the subject of scripts it would be nice to be able to do them in something besides their force-fed interface, like maybe a text editor! FM fails miserably at BOTH of those things specifically.


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2010)

Oakbridge said:


> It all depends on how the database was developed. I've been developing using FM for over 15 years now and I've never used a 3rd party plug-in in any of the solutions I've developed. Mainly because I don't trust them. There are some good ones but I've seen too many things over my 25 years in the business when it comes to 3rd party plug-ins for anything. Companies decide not to bother updating their plug-in when a new release comes out, leaving a customer stranded with an old version of something.
> 
> As for script steps, it's simply a warning saying that there are certain script steps that can't be supported (i.e. can't run Applescript, can't print, can't save records as Excel spreadsheet, etc.) on the iPad platform at this time, so a developer must revisit their scripts and adjust them if the script has the potential to be run on the iPad. It's not that FM Go can't do it because they made a half-a$$ application, the iPad platform can't support it.
> 
> ...


Understood regarding the not a desktop platform, and it makes sense that the steps you mention are not supported as the iPad doesn't do those sorts of things. I wholeheartedly agree on the 3rd party plugins as well, unfortunately to do some things with FM you have no choice but to use them. As I stated in an earlier post I've worked with and supported FM since it was FM (actually I started with ClarisWorks but that's another story). I've dealt with so many horror stories over the years I'm pretty jaded. Have seen so much critical data loss with it that I just can't recommend it to anyone who needs it for more than simple tasks.



> What would be the alternative? I'm curious to hear what you would use in a business environment to handle a database solution for anything from a single user to a 100 person office?


It depends on what you need to do with it. I personally do a lot of PHP/MySQL (or postgresql, or innodb, db2, sap, etc) these days, but that's not necessarily the right solution for everything either. I've done some 4D over the years (powerful but blech) as well. While not the best fit for everything the majority of stuff these days is some sort of web based system, whether it be intranet or extranet.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

mguertin said:


> Understood regarding the not a desktop platform, and it makes sense that the steps you mention are not supported as the iPad doesn't do those sorts of things. I wholeheartedly agree on the 3rd party plugins as well, unfortunately to do some things with FM you have no choice but to use them. As I stated in an earlier post I've worked with and supported FM since it was FM (actually I started with ClarisWorks but that's another story). I've dealt with so many horror stories over the years I'm pretty jaded. Have seen so much critical data loss with it that I just can't recommend it to anyone who needs it for more than simple tasks.


I won't claim "Oracle'dom", but it seems awhile since you have looked at FileMaker.

I have been doing this personally since 1991 and for other people since 1994.

1. I have never had critical data loss. I have programs in places where they have no business being - dirty environment, no IT support, forget about computer literacy - we are talking bare typewriter literacy.

2. All versions have been stable. I have programs designed in 2000 in daily use today.

3. The current family, versions 7 through 11

a.) support up to 8 terabytes of data. A far cry from FMP 2 days with 32 Mb per file

b.) multiple relationships with look through to great grand child tables etc. I won't dispute that you can work into a hole with this. I have taken over some work where the only way to do anything was to build shadow apps on top of what was there. To touch anything at the relationship level would break things in far off places.

c.) Multiple tables per file. Gone are the rats nest of files days.

4. I am not a big fan of plug-ins. They are extra cost and complexity in deployment. That being said, it is a great way to leverage an existing platform with special features. Photoshop has used them for years. I have used them subbing out to other developers to give multi app function to one app. There are reasons to go there from time to time.

5. It is not the same animal as other databases. It does suffer from a slight case of multiple personalities - I'm a database, I'm a rapid application environment, I'm a front end, I'm a reporting engine, I'm a back end. So yes, they have had to control the environment in different ways than other products.

6. With shadow table support for SQL databases from 9 on and now with FileMaker Go, i think it is a really useful tool for businesses.

Not trying to rant here. It is what it is. For the right people, used well, it is a really useful tool. FM Go gives it further use.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Yes I agree, I think it is time that you took another look at what FM 11 offers. It sounds like you've based your opinion on earlier versions.

One of the main things that has always frustrated me was the fact that you had to create so many 'extra' fields that weren't storing unique data. I would cringe every time I needed to create a 'global variable' field just to display data on a layout. FM has been aware of these shortcomings and with FM there are some good improvements. 

No, it's not perfect yet but with each release there have been significant improvements.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mguertin said:


> While not the best fit for everything the majority of stuff these days is some sort of web based system, whether it be intranet or extranet.


As much as I like FM, must agree with mguertin on this one.

Years ago I created a workgroup solution in FM that everyone at the company raved about. They wanted it to go national, no problem getting licenses and FM server...etc. etc. blah, blah.

But as with many large corporations, directors, vps, etc move on and the project died.

That's when I realized that it should have gone web based (intranet) using SQL and <insert scripting language of choice>.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2010)

It seems that it has matured some, but it's still not the tool for me. I've personally seen massive data loss and breakage, especially when FM decides to change file relations on the fly, linking to incorrect files. 

Anyway, if it works for what you do go for it, I'll stick to more traditional SQL backends and be happy. I still think that charging double for iPad over iPhone is highway robbery though.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

For every company running Oracle, DB2 or SQL Server Data Centre there are ten companies running Microsoft Access and FileMaker compares exceptionally well to Access. When I worked for the feds the department I worked in was using Microsoft Access databases hosted on drive shares which was just wretched. 

As far as FileMaker Go goes I showed it off at work yesterday running one of our largest databases and it was a hit, blackberry genocide seems inevitable, I have been waiting years to see the iPhone do something useful. 

I would love to see a Mac OS X version of FileMaker Go too since most users don't need the full version of Pro to do simple data entry.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Yes*



Trevor... said:


> I would love to see a Mac OS X version of FileMaker Go too since most users don't need the full version of Pro to do simple data entry.


I have been waiting forever for a "Light Client". Using full versions creates an expensive deployment. Light clients would make it much more affordable for small companies.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Lichen Software said:


> I have been waiting forever for a "Light Client". Using full versions creates an expensive deployment. Light clients would make it much more affordable for small companies.


I have created a few 'runtime/java' filemaker pro applications with fm 11 pro advanced..
love it.. 
that way clients do not need the application.. ( it was designed for kiosk deployment..)
We put in old G5 white iMacs... with this stand alone application running...
works amazingly...

The money client saved with FM 11 Pro Advanced is enormous... because they are deploying across the country.... they have tons of useless imacs that are getting second wind..


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Runtimes are great.*



macintosh doctor said:


> I have created a few 'runtime/java' filemaker pro applications with fm 11 pro advanced..
> love it..
> that way clients do not need the application.. ( it was designed for kiosk deployment..)
> We put in old G5 white iMacs... with this stand alone application running...
> ...


It works great for single users. As soon as you network, you are into the full version. They used to allow networking up until version 3. Apparently some one took it upon themselves to automate a steel mill and purchased a grand total of one copy of FileMaker. That feature in runtimes has not seen the light of day since.

I use runtimes for single user versions of Little Helper. Up until the last version where I completely revamped the file structure, I could supply anyone on anything from Windows 98 up on PC and from OS 8.6 up on Mac. Now I have to do four bindings to cover from XP Service Pack 2 up and to cover all of OS X. Two on each platform in FM 8.6 and another 2 in FM10.

Yes, I agree, runtimes are great. Been using them since 1995.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Watching the tech lists*

Getting reports in from early adopters. So far reports are really positive. There have been some problems contacting serves over the G3 network, but they seem to be getting ironed out. There are reports of people instantly able to deploy existing solutions into the shop floor environment with no changes.

This looks like it is going to be a really useful business tool.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Runtimes are fine, except I have about forty databases people work with. A stand-alone runtime for each would just get annoying.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

mguertin said:


> It seems that it has matured some, but it's still not the tool for me. I've personally seen massive data loss and breakage, especially when FM decides to change file relations on the fly, linking to incorrect files.


Hmmm... never saw that, even after renaming a linked file. Perhaps there was a buggy version once.


> Anyway, if it works for what you do go for it, I'll stick to more traditional SQL backends and be happy.


Well, of course - work with what you like. Just don't claim that FileMaker can't be used for "serious" database when in fact it can handle the job quite easily.


> I still think that charging double for iPad over iPhone is highway robbery though.


You're right - both the iPhone and iPad version are worth at least $40. The iPhone version is a steal.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2010)

I guess it all depends on how you look at particular things. I can tell you that for every successful FM based application I've supported I've seen a dozen that left you high and dry on version updates, third party plugin problems/lack of updates. Again if it works for what you need go for it.

I've seen FM up to v7 break file relation links (either drop or reconnect improperly), and most often when hosted on pre OSX. Have seen it less so on OSX but with OSX more permissions issues.

Can FM do hot backup yet? That was always a killer for me and my clients and shutting down and starting back up was never as reliable as I'd like it to be so there were a lot of 8am phone calls involved ... if you've done support you know the ones I'm talking about :/


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

mguertin said:


> I guess it all depends on how you look at particular things. I can tell you that for every successful FM based application I've supported I've seen a dozen that left you high and dry on version updates, third party plugin problems/lack of updates. Again if it works for what you need go for it.
> 
> I've seen FM up to v7 break file relation links (either drop or reconnect improperly), and most often when hosted on pre OSX. Have seen it less so on OSX but with OSX more permissions issues.
> 
> Can FM do hot backup yet? That was always a killer for me and my clients and shutting down and starting back up was never as reliable as I'd like it to be so there were a lot of 8am phone calls involved ... if you've done support you know the ones I'm talking about :/


It appears that all of your opinions and posts have been based on version 7 and earlier. Do you realize that version 7 came out 6 years ago and was discontinued 5 years ago? Much has changed in that time and yes FM Server can do hot backups. Most of my customers are set up with the server performing hourly backups. It even manages the folder structure for backups so as not to overwrite previous backups.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2010)

Yep 7 is old, but also consider how many paid upgrades that would have required in 6 years to stay current. And if you dont upgrade how long are you supported for? How many of those upgrades were forced? How much breakage resulted during those upgrades, alone with how many 3rd party paid upgrades for plugins? How many 3rd party plugins didn't do the update and no longer work? I will stop beating a dead horse here. If you guys have confidence in it great. I don't and likely never will again. At one point I thought it was the cat's meow, but not since I moved to full on SQL backends. I also never liked any of the web end of their offering which is important to me and my clients. 

While I haven't done serious with with it for a while I have tested it occasionally. It still doesn't meet my needs, although it does have a lot more features than 5.5v2 had . Can I edit scripts in a text editor yet? That's a huge one for me. 

Again each to their own and if it works for you go for it but you'd be hard pressed to get me back to it.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

mguertin said:


> Yep 7 is old, but also consider how many paid upgrades that would have required in 6 years to stay current. And if you dont upgrade how long are you supported for? How many of those upgrades were forced? How much breakage resulted during those upgrades, alone with how many 3rd party paid upgrades for plugins? How many 3rd party plugins didn't do the update and no longer work? I will stop beating a dead horse here. If you guys have confidence in it great. I don't and likely never will again. At one point I thought it was the cat's meow, but not since I moved to full on SQL backends. I also never liked any of the web end of their offering which is important to me and my clients.
> 
> While I haven't done serious with with it for a while I have tested it occasionally. It still doesn't meet my needs, although it does have a lot more features than 5.5v2 had . Can I edit scripts in a text editor yet? That's a huge one for me.
> 
> Again each to their own and if it works for you go for it but you'd be hard pressed to get me back to it.


A FM Server with 5 licenses sells for roughly $2,500 and includes a year of free upgrades (called Annual Maintenance). Each additional year of maintenance is approximately $250. So a customer who purchased a FM Server with 5 user licenses in 2004 would have spent approximately $4,000 total including their original software purchase. Not a bad investment to keep a system 100% up to date.

In that 6 year stretch, we've seen 4 new versions of FM (8 thru 11). Not one of them has ever broken something that was in a previous version. As for third-party plugins, I don't use them for the exact reasons you've mentioned. 

I'm a big believer that people should choose products that match their specific requirements. I can respect that you've made your choice and it works for you. There are pros and cons for selecting a web based database environment (i.e. MySQL + PHP) but I haven't gone into any of the negatives. I respect your decision to choose what is right for you and your clients.

So please don't continue to make negative comments about something that you haven't seriously used in 5 years. 

It's like saying that you tried a Mac using OS 8 and didn't like it and you'll never use a Mac again.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

mguertin said:


> Yep 7 is old, but also consider how many paid upgrades that would have required in 6 years to stay current. And if you dont upgrade how long are you supported for? How many of those upgrades were forced?


As opposed to what? Oracle support contracts? Upgrading Access, paying for people upgrade MySQL over the years? All software in businesses have costs associated with maintaining them. This is a non-issue.



> While I haven't done serious with with it for a while I have tested it occasionally. It still doesn't meet my needs, although it does have a lot more features than 5.5v2 had . Can I edit scripts in a text editor yet? That's a huge one for me.


No, and likely won't in the near future. While that may be huge for you, it's a completely arbitrary restriction.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2010)

PHP/MySQL is free. As is Perl, Python and a plethora of other options for both front and back end solutions. And Oakbridge, as I've said I have tried FM in the last 5 years and each time I still found it didn't do what I needed without annoying workarounds or add ons but I haven't had to support anything since v7 as everyone I do work with have phased it out for other solutions since then. Lastly I agree that a web based system has serious downfalls, but so does a closed server/client setup like FM.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mguertin said:


> Lastly I agree that a web based system has serious downfalls, but so does a closed server/client setup like FM.


Like what exactly, I still have ambitions of someday attempting to convert a FM solution using MySQL and PHP or Python.

BTW, just because I quoted mguertin, does not mean that the question is not open to others, so feel free to opine.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

mguertin said:


> PHP/MySQL is free. As is Perl, Python and a plethora of other options for both front and back end solutions.
> [/quote[
> 
> They are free if your time is worth nothing. You need someone quite skilled in programming to use one of the "free" solutions. You aren't getting ad hoc solutions done by your average office worker with those. You do get them with FM. And those ad hoc solutions can then be enhanced into something more complex with a skilled FM developer.
> ...


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2010)

You are correct, FM is well suited for exactly what you describe. Its big strengths are rapid application development and built in interface building tools. It is also a good choice for do it yourself solutions without a doubt, to solve specific small problems that Joe in shipping can build for himself. That said if you're comfortable with Joe's abilities and solution then FM is totally fine. I am more of the mind of having a professionally built solution if it's something serious that your company is going to rely on for more than simple tasks.

You are also absolutely right that time is not free, but again I'm talking about professionally built solutions, and while FM is, in my eyes, "good enough" for s lot of things I have always been happier to use a more powerful backend and spend a bit more time if that is what is required and I can personally do a ton more and do it infinitely faster with a full on SQL solution behind the scenes.

For web based limitations there are a lot of them ... You're limited to a web browser for an interface and there are a lot of them and a lot of display bugs so you need a good knowledge of HTML/CSS ... No drag and drop of anything, no access to the client filesystem, many interface challenges are you're limited to web forms for input for the most part, etc.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

hayesk said:


> They are free if your time is worth nothing. You need someone quite skilled in programming to use one of the "free" solutions. You aren't getting ad hoc solutions done by your average office worker with those. You do get them with FM. And those ad hoc solutions can then be enhanced into something more complex with a skilled FM developer.
> 
> I've seen it happen. An average office worker makes something in FM to solve his/her own problem and it gets developed into something corporate-wide. This type of thing does happen with MySQL/PHP, because the average office worker doesn't know how (or have IT permission, or have the time) to set up a server, deploy MySQL,PHP,etc. just to try out an idea.
> .


Hmmmm, I'd think that the average office worker would be creating their ad hoc solutions in MS Access and not Filemaker considering it comes bundled with Office and is likely supported by the IT dep't. Most IT weenies wouldn't even let you install FM on any of their systems. During my brief corporate stint, their standard replies were "who's gonna support it"or "we only allow and support 'authorised' applications" or "we can not have this on our server...no way...no how".

Filemaker is a great personal database, a fine small to midsized business database and perhaps a good workgroup db solution provided you have an understanding IT dep't.

There is still a learning curve with FM as much as there is with SQL, etc. which will take up someone's "free" time. Both require some knowledge of data structure, relational theory and database design which, let's face it, most average "office worker" types do not have...unless they gave up some more "free" time to learn it.

But, in any case, Filemaker suffers from the same problem as MySQL, PHP, Python, etc...and that is that many corporate IT departments will not have them on their servers. FM because it's not MS and open source software because they fear security issues.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

mguertin said:


> PHP/MySQL is free. As is Perl, Python and a plethora of other options for both front and back end solutions. And Oakbridge, as I've said I have tried FM in the last 5 years and each time I still found it didn't do what I needed without annoying workarounds or add ons but I haven't had to support anything since v7 as everyone I do work with have phased it out for other solutions since then. Lastly I agree that a web based system has serious downfalls, but so does a closed server/client setup like FM.


MySQL is not free. This is a typical misunderstanding. I'm not going to get into a full explanation on all of the scenarios involving the licensing of MySQL other than to say that in some situations it is free, however in most, a commercial license should be purchased.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2010)

Oakbridge said:


> MySQL is not free. This is a typical misunderstanding. I'm not going to get into a full explanation on all of the scenarios involving the licensing of MySQL other than to say that in some situations it is free, however in most, a commercial license should be purchased.


You might want to double check that fact. Read up on MySQL GA vs Enterprise. It was once as you say but they have changed things over the last couple of years.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

mguertin said:


> You might want to double check that fact. Read up on MySQL GA vs Enterprise. It was once as you say but they have changed things over the last couple of years.


As they say, open source software is free if your time is worth nothing.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Sometimes Better than Good Enough*

This is an attempt to answer mguertin's statements in a constructive fashion without either ranting or writing a book 



mguertin said:


> You are correct, FM is well suited for exactly what you describe. Its big strengths are rapid application development and built in interface building tools.


... and a bonzo calculation/reporting engine, single technology scaleability from single user through 10 people dependably on Peer to Peer (This is bigger than you would think) , to 250 people (and perhaps 1000, but have not read the papers on this yet to know the caveats ) using FM Server and Server advanced, minimal maintenance and minimal IT support. No LAMP, MAMP or WAMP stack and associated hardware to establish, maintain and secure resulting in lower overall IT costs.

It also supports web interfaces in several ways, but that is not it's strong suit in public. It is however a huge deal on large company intranet. Build the database, throw it on the server, open up Instant Web Publishing and 100 employees can access it. Another 250 can simultaneously be working on it as a desktop application.

FileMaker is one of the "Corporate Dirty Little Secrets". it will never show up on the annual statements like an Oracle installation - absolutely no Oooh value. But it is in there doing dirty jobs all over the place.




mguertin said:


> It is also a good choice for do it yourself solutions without a doubt, to solve specific small problems that Joe in shipping can build for himself. That said if you're comfortable with Joe's abilities and solution then FM is totally fine. I am more of the mind of having a professionally built solution if it's something serious that your company is going to rely on for more than simple tasks.


I take some issue with this statement. 

FileMaker Inc. never did do themselves a favor when they advertised "Legendary Ease Of Use". You don't see that any more. What you are describing is what I call "The Guitar Attitude". Learn three chords and you can play guitar, but it does not in any way make you a Segovia. FileMaker has picked up some wrap on this from previous advertising and resultant failures in one form or another.

Wannabe's on any database platform cause trouble. Fragile as opposed to robust systems, data loss and arcane, inconsistent user experiences. 

I would submit to you that after a project is deployed, if I have to write a document that tells the client how to use FileMaker Pro or you have to write an SQL primer, we have both failed miserably. It is not so much that I dispute that Joe in shipping may build a useable file, but rather that using Joe in shipping as the example of a measure of the product is neither just nor proper.

I do work for social service agencies and for charities. Social Service Agencies in particular are an interesting client. They raise some money themselves. They are not for profit. They derive the balance of their money by delivering government programs and being paid for said delivery. 

Here is the secret. The government does not want to pay. They will make their reporting requirements totally and absolutely arcane hoping that you cannot possibly comply and hence will not be fully paid out. One of the systems I built has been in use for a particular government program through Toronto, Peel, York, Durham, Simcoe and Peterborough and the kawarthas. It's deployment varies from single users and file synch using runtimes, LAN, WAN, Terminal Services and Citrix Server, depending on the needs of the particular agency. It is a system that has been able to reliably meet the reporting requirements of that program. Versions have been running since 2003. No, I do not get any tech support calls at all.

The program handles capital, membership, attendance, events including outreach, lending libraries and volunteer management. I would submit to you that this is not a simple program, that it is absolutely business critical and because it does do government compliance for major agencies with multi million dollar budgets has to be considered absolutely serious.

I have two other programs of similar complexity in this arena. For one of them, the government is trying to replace it with "standard technology". I am estimating they will be close on $500,000 minimum and they still won't have it right. 

So, I do consider this to be a very serious tool.

Definition of terms here:

Mission Critical: Software failure causes death ( I don't do this and FileMaker Pro is not suitable)
Business Critical: Software failure causes immediate interruption of business activities. (Do it all the time)



mguertin said:


> You are also absolutely right that time is not free, but again I'm talking about professionally built solutions, and while FM is, in my eyes, "good enough" for s lot of things I have always been happier to use a more powerful backend and spend a bit more time if that is what is required and I can personally do a ton more and do it infinitely faster with a full on SQL solution behind the scenes.
> 
> For web based limitations there are a lot of them ... You're limited to a web browser for an interface and there are a lot of them and a lot of display bugs so you need a good knowledge of HTML/CSS ... No drag and drop of anything, no access to the client filesystem, many interface challenges are you're limited to web forms for input for the most part, etc.


In the end, all functioning systems are "Good Enough". It is not until you tax them that you find out if the system is actually better. Also, there is no system that is either "Perfect" or "Free". There is always a wish list and there is always at the very minimum time expended. We are talking two very different tool sets here, both in their strengths and in the development paradigms behind them. 

One of the types of clients I have been seeking out is actually you, doing web apps. Why? Because there are times that a desk top app is where it is at and a web app is at best "Good Enough". The ESS features of FileMaker Pro 9 and up allow a direct connection to an SQL database and data manipulation directly within the Filemaker desktop environment. It does this totally independently of whatever web app has been laid upon this same database. This allows a public access in web format, but also permits an active desktop database environment for doing the day to day administration. Think of e-commerce sites with a full administrative back end. That type of system would be better than "Good Enough" for a client doing some serious integration.

I have not seen any lists recently, but there used to be a number of lists published on who used Filemaker Pro. I had one on my site back in 2002. It is out of date, but I have reproduced it below to give some idea of the depth of penetration of the business market. That being said, adoption appears to be regional. Toronto and environs is not that large a hot spot.


Who Uses FileMaker Pro Circa 2002
America On Line (AOL)International Operations
American Airlines
American Express - Australia
Arco
Art Institute of Dallas
Arthur Young - Australia
Austin Regional Clinic - Austin Texas
Australian Red Cross
Bank of Bermuda
Baylor University
BC TelComm, British Columbia - Canada
BHP
Black & Decker Australia
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Boeing Corporation USA
Bond University
Boston University School of Medicine
British Petroleum
Business Week Magazine
Cadbury Schweppes - Australia
Canadian National Railway - Montreal, Quebec
Canadian Stock Market Reporter
Canon U.S.A. Inc
Children's Hospital of Little Rock
Cisco Systems, - Australia/Pacific
Citibank US, NY
Coca Cola (headquarters), Atlanta, Georgia
Columbia Tristar Home Video
Commonwealth Bank
Dallas Morning News
Data Instruments
Delta Air Lines
Dreamworks SKG
Dreamworks TV Animation
Eli Lilly & Co.
Emory University
Empresa de Correios e Telegrafos (ECT). - Brazil
European Laboratories for Particle Physics
Florida International University
Franklin Mint
Gallo Winery
Gavell & Gown - Toronto Canada
GE Capital Canada
GE Yokogawa Medical Systems - Tokyo
General Motors Australia
Gray Advertising, Inc., NY
GTE, Argentina
Harcourt Brace
Harley-Davidson
Harvard University
Herbalife
Holt Rinehart and Winston
IBM Interactive Media Dept.
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.
Informatics Health Care
Innosoft International, Inc.
International Food Information Council
James Hardie Industries Australia
JC Penney Corporation
Jim Henson's Muppet Factory
Journal of Immunology
Justice Department, US
KPMG Peat Marwick - Bermuda
KPMG - National University Centre - Ontario - Canada
Levi Strauss
Liberty Mutual Insurance
Lockeed Corporation
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
Lockheed Missles and Space
Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico
Metropolitan Separate School Board, Toronto, Canada
Monster Cable
Motorola Inc, USA
MTV Networks
NASA
National Library of Canada
NBC 2000, a Division of NBC
Nelvana (Toronto, Canada)
Netcomm - Australia
New York University School of Medicine/Department of
Surgery(Oncology)
Nickelodeon
Northern Telecom
Novell Inc.
NRMA Insurance - Sydney Australia
NutraSweet
Octal Publications Ltd.
Otis Elevator
Oxford Health Plans
Oxford University Press
Pacific Bell Information Services
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Phillip Morris Inc.
Pizza Hut Corporation
Polaroid Corporation
prodesign eyewear, inc
Qantas Airways Australia
R.H. Macy & Company
Raytheon E-Systems, Inc.
Readers Digest
Return Logistics International
RHI Management Resources ( Ottawa, Canada)
Rhino Records
Rice University
Richmond, BC Canada School District 38
Riot Music,USA
Rockefeller University - USA
Royal Army Museum of Brussels
SAGA Software
San Jose Police Dept.- San Jose, CA
Satari Inc.
Schlotzsky's
Schlumberger
Scientific Atlanta
Seligman Securities, NY
Shell Company of Australia
Showtime
SMT800 - Piscataway, NJ (administer all toll-free numbers for
the US)
Sony Corporation
Sports Illustrated Magazine
SR (Scott Rudin) Films
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Palo Alto, CA
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
The Alabama Eye Bank
The Body Shop
The Center City District, Philadelphia
The Franklin Mint
The New York Public Library, New York, NY
The Nordic Bank - Helsinki, Finland
The Nordic Development Fund
Time-Life, Inc.
TransCanada PipeLines
U.S. Satellite Broadcasting
University of California, San Diego
University of Georgia - University Communications
University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
University of Melbourne
University of Michigan - Office of Instructional Technology
University of Penn - Neuropsychiatry
University of Tennessee
University of Texas at Austin
University of Toronto
University of Wisconsin Alumni Office
US Peace Corps
USA Today
Walgreens
Walt Disney Productions
Warner Bros
Washington University, Pulmonary Division
Washington University School of Architecture
Web Broadcasting Company - Palo Alto CA
Westinghouse (Nuclear) Savannah River Plant
Wrigley
Yale University

This was a while ago. I am sure some organizations have gone on to other things. All software has a life cycle. I am also sure that other companies have come onto the list. The main point is that this is not amateur night at the fringe festival. FileMaker is used world wide by various sizes of companies and has been for some time.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2010)

Wow. Sorry Lichen Software but that came across as both a rant and a book. I have obviously hit a soft spot and you seem to be a Filemaker Only type of database developer. I stand by my conclusions I posted earlier and if you don't agree that's fine but please spare us the spouting of stats of who might have used FM once upon a time. I used it once upon a time as well. It all comes down to your needs, as I pointed out before and if FM makes you happy then by all means use it.

Lastly, as for my time being worth nothing ... Ummm, I don't think so. I do this for a living and would like to think that my billing rates and client list stand for themselves.


----------



## Principal (Nov 28, 2004)

*Settings*

Anybody have the computer & ipad settings for me to be able to access my database on 3G network (WAN)


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Principal said:


> Anybody have the computer & ipad settings for me to be able to access my database on 3G network (WAN)


You'll have to set up Port Mapping on the router that your FM computer is connected to. Map port 5003 to the internal IP address of the machine that is running FM Pro.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

mguertin said:


> Wow. Sorry Lichen Software but that came across as both a rant and a book. I have obviously hit a soft spot and you seem to be a Filemaker Only type of database developer. I stand by my conclusions I posted earlier and if you don't agree that's fine but please spare us the spouting of stats of who might have used FM once upon a time. I used it once upon a time as well. It all comes down to your needs, as I pointed out before and if FM makes you happy then by all means use it.


You brought this on yourself when you claimed FM couldn't be used for serious database work and nobody used it for such. So, yes, his post came across as a rant and a book, but if you don't like it, then simply don't make such an incorrect claim - especially considering your limited experience with the product. 


> Lastly, as for my time being worth nothing ... Ummm, I don't think so. I do this for a living and would like to think that my billing rates and client list stand for themselves.


You missed the point. The point is that free software is not free because you have to pay someone to develop with it for you. Yes, you do for commercial software, but nobody is claiming commercial software is free.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2010)

You don't make any sense with your arguments hayesk. Free software is not free because you have to pay someone to develop with it? But of course you have to pay for someone to develop the commercial software too if you want something good ... so having to pay for only the development portion of things and not additional licensing, etc is bad or "not free" how? It doesn't affect the fact that you are not paying for per server and/or per client licensing like you do with FM. The "free" solutions I'm talking about are also available out-of-the-box on just about any cheap commodity hosting servers and on just about any reasonably modern (and even some not-so-modern) OS platform you can think of, which is another huge selling point over FM.

As for the comments on my limited experience with FM, how would you know that I have limited experience with it? I used FM for many many years, albeit not the last few years worth of revisions. I've in fact developed custom solutions with it for some pretty big companies along with way that saw many years of usage and did exactly what they were intended to do.

Lastly, I think we're bantering over the definition of what we both call "serious" -- you might want to re-read the posts discussing that portion of things. To me "serious" includes very important things like scalability, compatibility and portability. FM is lacking in all 3 of those areas specifically. Again I will say that as far as rapid development, a small business/small amount of users requiring simple tasks and/or a "do it yourself" type solution it's fine and dandy, but to churn through millions of rows of data, let alone any amount of multi-relational data ... not so much -- hence me saying that it's not for "serious" usage.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

mguertin said:


> The "free" solutions I'm talking about are also available out-of-the-box on just about any cheap commodity hosting servers and on just about any reasonably modern (and even some not-so-modern) OS platform you can think of, which is another huge selling point over FM.


No argument. This is one of the reasons I have wanted a "Light Client" for FM to mitigate that cost.



mguertin said:


> Lastly, I think we're bantering over the definition of what we both call "serious" -- you might want to re-read the posts discussing that portion of things. To me "serious" includes very important things like scalability, compatibility and portability. FM is lacking in all 3 of those areas specifically.


Scaleability is excellent within it's limits (250 to 1000 seats as a desktop). It is proprietary, but is playing better with other systems - ESS shadow tables are a great example. Multiple import and export formats is another. Portability, I am not sure exactly what is meant so I can't comment.



mguertin said:


> Again I will say that as far as rapid development, a small business/small amount of users requiring simple tasks and/or a "do it yourself" type solution it's fine and dandy, but to churn through millions of rows of data, let alone any amount of multi-relational data ... not so much -- hence me saying that it's not for "serious" usage.


Data capability has greatly increased - 8 terabytes. I would never claim "Enterprise Robustness", but million + record systems are not that out of the ordinary now. It's relationship modeling capabilities are now very good. Relationships looking sequentially through multiple tables is very much supported.

As a rapid development environment it is hard to beat. Very valuable in instances where needs change regularly or rapidly.

I think we may be to some extent hacking away at symantics. I am thinking that in using the term "serious" what you mean among other things is usable from one end of the spectrum (say single user) to the other end (enterprise wide integrated system) and in general terms technologically flexible in that it can be integrated to other technologies.

When I am using the word serious, I am starting from the other end at the business model and saying one can use this particular tool to effectively model serious real world problems.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2010)

You are right, we are talking about a different "serious"


----------

