In the meantime I paid for a starter solutions and the notice doesn't appear any more. The reason why the free solution wasn't acceptable any more was indeed because the notice was glued to the host screen and stayed there forever. It couldn't be removed, not even by the host and not even when there wasn't a connection with RU any more or when working in another program. It was there to stay forever ... and that is simply unacceptable.
Pauline: >However, please note that it's possible to point Host to a self-hosted RU Server when using a pre-configured custom >installation package built via the MSI Configurator Tool. Are you saying that this makes it possible for a bad actor to substitute his own RU Server? If so, then all bets are off I guess, unless that server is on the network with the hosts and those hosts detected that fact. That would be grounds for not display a message, as the server being on that same network would prove a trusted connection (in my mind) It might not be unreasonable for a technician to put a RU server on each network that is being managed. It could be a cheap obsolete machine. Maybe that has ramifications though with the technicians ability to to switch the installations they are talking to.
Are you saying that this makes it possible for a bad actor to substitute his own RU Server?
I run my own RU servers and there is zero difference between them and the company hosted ones, you simply set the installer to point to your server URL instead. Making it more complicated just opens up more potential for problems.
As a commercial user, I’m a fan of anything that lowers the ease and ability for bad actors to use RU… if you’re using it for personal use the restrictions are a fair trade off for free software and if you are using it professionally then you should purchase a professional license - negates all these issues.
snk-nick That was well put, right! So yes, trying to make the free version work on "customer" premises is not a good thing to do. Anyone supporting users is not using it for personal use! However someone using this to support their aged relative from across the country (a typical use case for free use) should have a way to create a free but trusted configuration, IMHO, I was suggesting a server at the site of the relatives could do that IF creating a server at site would be considered the trusted piece that, upon determining there is a server, would be part of the logic that supresses the message from being displayed. Seems likely to me creating a server on the network of the target would something that a bad actor would not be able to trick a user into, not as easily as tricking them into installing the host. RU should be open to ideas on how to create a trusted situation on the free version that would along these lines, Of course, they have better things really to do with their time, so I'm not saying its imperative on them, but it would show good will to consider it. That would go a long way to dispel the idea that the message is related to generating revenue. It has been said the message is there because the free version can't be trusted, well, then consider making it trusted, that's all. I propose the server is the key. Maybe not.
Edited:Douglas Crawford - Jan 21, 2022 9:49:11 pm EST
However someone using this to support their aged relative from across the country (a typical use case for free use) should have a way to create a free but trusted configuration
There is not a problem to create a trusted configuration for free license users. There is a problem to distinguish good free license users from bad free license users who would abuse such trusted configuration. :) And that problem is not one that can be solved by technical means.