Thank you for your reply, Paul.

as usual, complete and exhaustive. Your explanation about licensing and default settings activation has explained my doubts.

Regards,

Claudio

Unknown said:

And the login name... well this is part of the work we are doing in preparation for further enhancements that will make it possible for users to a lot more things in the future with cloud solutions, the appstore etc.

How exactly is this going to work with LSPs where the account used to buy/manage dozens of licenses is 'owned' by some manager and the actual workers (i.e. engineers actually using Studio) have no access - and never ever get access - to the account login?

Unknown said:

How exactly is this going to work with LSPs where the account used to buy/manage dozens of licenses is 'owned' by some manager and the actual workers (i.e. engineers actually using Studio) have no access - and never ever get access - to the account login?

It's never going to be a single solution for everyone Evzen.  But that doesn't mean we should not try to support the vast majority of users who do have their own account.  You do raise a good point though and even now it's an area some companies struggle with just being able to roll out apps from the appstore.

One solution we have been looking at is to make private appstores.  So a company with admins who control the installation of the products would have their own internal store where their translators/engineers could take the approved apps without having to own their own licensed copy of Studio.

So still things we are thinking about, and you do raise a valid point.  If you have a better idea of how to control this we're all ears as it is a conundrum and what works for one company doesn't work for another.

Unknown said:

One solution we have been looking at is to make private appstores.  So a company with admins who control the installation of the products would have their own internal store where their translators/engineers could take the approved apps without having to own their own licensed copy of Studio.

Bad idea. Admins have absolutely NO knowledge of CAT tools, therefore they are completely WRONG people to do this.

Unknown said:

Bad idea. Admins have absolutely NO knowledge of CAT tools, therefore they are completely WRONG people to do this.

Well, we don't choose who the admins are!

Unknown said:

So my suggestion is - stop wasting resources and money by this hopeless fight (people not willing to pay for software will NEVER pay for it anyway, and will ALWAYS find their way) and better focus on making the software actually useful... and also more affordable.

Thanks Evzen, we'll definitely take your wisdom on board.

Unknown said:

Well, we don't choose who the admins are!

Neither do we engineers. That's why we need solution which is actually useful IN REAL LIFE.
And as I said, the solution is easy - stop pointlessly overcomplicating things and follow the KISS principle.

Good morning Paul,

Indeed, I do not see that icon. It appears briefly as the programme is starting up, but when it is running, I do not see it any more. It turns white. It is the bottom icon on the attached image.

With regard to some of the reactions: the proposal was not for one configuration for everyone, but rather for letting everybody choose what he or she actually needs. As explained, my situation is that I work purely locally. Where on-line connections are not absolutely necessary, they should be avoided.

I believe the point is not whether a functionality is 'seen' or not, but that the fewer background processes there are, the better a system will run and the less chance for unwanted interactions, leading to undesirable results.

The suggestion I saw that somebody, who does not make full use of all the functionality, should opt for different software, is plainly ridiculous. Personally, I do not like salt. Should I therefore refrain from eating potatoes?

Best regards,

Good morning Paul,

Indeed, I do not see that icon. It appears briefly as the programme is starting up, but when it is running, I do not see it any more. It turns white. It is the bottom icon on the attached image.

With regard to some of the reactions: the proposal was not for one configuration for everyone, but rather for letting everybody choose what he or she actually needs. As explained, my situation is that I work purely locally. Where on-line connections are not absolutely necessary, they should be avoided.

I believe the point is not whether a functionality is 'seen' or not, but that the fewer background processes there are, the better a system will run and the less chance for unwanted interactions, leading to undesirable results.

The suggestion I saw that somebody, who does not make full use of all the functionality, should opt for different software, is plainly ridiculous. Personally, I do not like salt. Should I therefore refrain from eating potatoes?

Best regards,

I think I am that 'somebody' you are referring to. I simply said that if you don't like a software with too many options and features because you think they slow your work down you should look for a simpler software. I don't use most of Studio features, either out of plain ignorance or because my current clients do not make use of them.

I'd love to work with server-based projects, I also like packages where everything is already set up by the client.

Instead I am stuck with clients sending *.sdlxliff files, not sending me their TM 'for privacy reasons' and making me sign NDAs where I swear I'll delete the working files the second I deliver them, or that I won't put their files on dropbox, and that I have an antivirus installed plus make regular backup copy of files I am not supposed to store. Still, I can't blame SDL because some agencies do not want to learn to use server-based projects or to create packages (Note: I actually asked that company to please learn making packages and I was replied that SDL training for companies is too expensive).

To answer to your question - If at McDonald's they sell only salted fried and you don't like fries, you should not eat there instead of writing them to add unsalted potatoes on their menu. ;-)

Finally, I don't think SDL has been expanding Studios features (thus increasing its complexity) because they are a bunch of nerdy programmers who enjoy making complicate codes. Maybe you don't need all those features, but someone else likely asked for those features if they are there today. Plainly ridiculous is what I'd call an user who, based on his personal needs, asks to a software manufacturer to remove stuff they don't use from their software.

Dear Paola,

I think there is some misunderstanding here. The idea of having separate versions for users who work on-line and users who work locally or some other sort of division was forwarded by somebody else. I supported the idea and was then asked which components I think could be done without. I never actually asked for anything to be removed.

I did not write that I do not 'like' the software. Where have you seen that? Nor did I suggest that all those options and features slow my work down. Where did you see that? I merely suggested that it would be safer not to be connected on-line, if there is no particular reason for being connected.

I take the view that there is plenty of fish in the sea. Hence, I do not accept packages and other on-line resources and leave such jobs for others, who are happy working with them. I work with agencies that have blanket NDAs in their terms of service. I refuse to sign additional NDAs with individual counterparties, who are actually customers of the agency that sends me the work. If they don't like it, I tell them to go and look for someone else. Till now, that has stood me very well. Why should I allow customers to make me feel unhappy, whilst most of them don't even properly prepare their input files?

If the input file is an RTF or DOC, I convert it to DOCX. If it has a TOC, I make sure that styles are properly applied. In the majority of input files from German industrial customers, it is stated that their machines are in conformity with the latest technological standards. So, if I deliver a DOCX in Word 2016 format, I am doing exactly the same: complying with the latest technological standards. If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

But to go back to your last sentence, it cannot possibly refer to me, because I did not actually ask for anything to be removed. So, I do not see what is plainly ridiculous about that. Without discussing possibilities and suggestions, nothing will ever be improved.

Best regards,

Hi Paola

following your opinion in your last post

“[…] Finally, I don't think SDL has been expanding Studios features (thus increasing its complexity) because they are a bunch of nerdy programmers who enjoy making complicate codes. Maybe you don't need all those features, but someone else likely asked for those features if they are there today. Plainly ridiculous is what I'd call an user who, based on his personal needs, asks to a software manufacturer to remove stuff they don't use from their software.”

probably I must clarify some points of my initial post.

• First of all, I am working with SDL products since SDLX after having tried other free and paying similar CAT products, and I regularly upgraded to successive editions (2007, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015 up to the current 2017 SR1 CU6) because I really consider this CAT really valuable and reliable. Otherwise I’d not went on buying and installing all regular upgrades as soon as they were proposed, don’t you think?
• Secondly, and to be completely clear, I did never declare or think of programmers/developers/marketing people at SDL as a “bunch of nerdy programmers who enjoy making complicate codes”, because I deeply appreciate and respect their work. Otherwise I’d migrate to another CAT product, don’t you think?
• Thirdly, in my initial post I just expressed a possible proposal because I erroneously thought that the problem was generated by a sort of “automatic” link to “cloud” and “MT” engines, and Paul Filkin clearly explained that “[…] Interestingly the features that have caused the problems to date are not only not related to Cloud or MT, they are specifically features for Translators. The initial problem is we set them as default and this was a mistake, they should have been deactivated by default so users could activate them if they needed/wanted them. […]” and that the features would, in case, be controlled by licensing. I have understood and agreed with his explanation.
• Last, but not least, I never proposed to the SDL people to remove stuff I do not use, and I am clever enough to avoid a thought/request like that. I just proposed, if possible and if the SDL people deem it feasible, to create an edition with possible deactivation of “cloud” and “MT” features/modules. So, I’m sorry, I do not accept to be considered “plainly ridiculous”. As said before, I appreciated all regular upgrades I decided to buy and to install on my machines, because I trust SDL and their efforts to enhance “our” favourite CAT software. But this does not mean that I do not have the right to express my suggestions, even if not correct or feasible. I suppose we are living in a democratic community which allows us to express our positive and/or “negative” thoughts without being considered "ridiculous", or am I wrong?

Finally, after having decided to work with SDL products, I never bought and installed on my machines any other competitor CAT tool, as SDL Studio can import, export and deal with their files without any substantial problem.

Thank you.

Claudio

Good morning Claudio,

Paola's 'plainly ridiculous' comment was a reaction to my response to her earlier reaction, where she suggested that a user, who does not like all the features of Studio, should use some other software. I had objected to that. I called that suggestion 'plainly ridiculous.

I had merely expressed support for your earlier posting, whilst, like you, I did not suggest that anything should be removed.

Best regards,