jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (07/11/90)
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >Which brings up an interesting point for Everex. When Microport went face >down SCO (Interactive also, I think) said that they would "upgrade" you for >a fee. You sent your money and your boot disk, poof! A current OS with an >existing vendor. My treacherous mind wonders what response Everex would get >if they did a "give me your tired and poor" number on Interactive, Intel, or >any other vendor who we're mad at at the moment... >Wait a minute! The AT&T license fee has been paid, we gotta send in original >boot/install diskettes, Everex could legally upgrade us just like SCO and ISC >did when Microport hit the wall. I'm interested, is Everex interested? Bill, I'd absolutely leap at a chance to replace Interactive AND/OR SCO with a product whose company understands what support is all about, is able to produce a package that meets the quality standard of the DOS world from even as far back as 5 years ago (you know, things that generally work like they should, documentation that bears some resemblance to what's shipped, etc), and has learned its lesson from the DOS world regarding COPY PROTECTION. Can you imagine what a review of ISC Unix prepared to DOS software standards would look like. Another Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Particularly this new innovation of ISC's called Copy Protection (or serialization, if you like.) I discovered this new feature this week as I opened the box on 62 lbs of ISC Unix 2.2.x - everything they make, we bought. I installed the package on a Compaq 33 mhz DeskPro. Said installation, while a bit more glitzy than 2.0.2, had all the same old problems and still required me to whiz around with vi editing this configuration file or that. If corporate hogs like NCR can write interactive system administration scripts that work, why can't interactive? After the custom configuration, it has run for a couple of days without incident. I really can't compare the speed with 2.0.2 since I never had it on hardware this fast. The rest of this article is an open letter to ISC - I'm sure one or more of the ISC minions who read this group can burn a copy for the marketing geeks to read - that is, if they can configure lp properly. I am a contract program manager who is currently in charge of a project that involves building an automated POS data collection system on a national basis. Each store that participates in the program will have a nice little PC running *nix in a lights-out configuration. I expect to install about 1000 sites between now and the end of the year for pilot testing. Production rollout will involve perhaps 10 times this many systems in the first year. In other words, this is a LARGE project and will mean major bucks for selected vendors. SCO was the client's initial choice for the OS. It had a lot of support within the organization. Then SCO started their serialization crap. It is my policy to do everything within my power to kick out vendors who implement such systems. I sold the concept of trying a (to them) new product - ISC unix. Benchmarking showed large improvements in disk I/O performance over SCO Xenix. So we ordered the 62 lbs of ISC unix in order to build a prototype. The package arrived by barge :-) We opened it. We found that damn serialization card just like the one that got SCO the boot. Guess what? ISC is getting the same boot that SCO did. We will most likely end up with an AIX solution as much as I hate IBM. Hear this ISC - Your serialization and your support policy has cost you the sale of thousands of copies of your product. I will NOT allow a product around one of my projects where: a) I have to set up an accounting system to track what authorization key goes with what machine or b) the vendor does not have a support policy such that any of my staff can pick up the phone and get a question answered directly and without any bullshit about distributor support, time limits or what have you. The only kind of problems we'd call you about would be those that involve either poor documentation (many!) or the need for source code. Any other call would quite frankly be a waste of our time. We probably know more operationally about the product than you do and I'll guarantee we know more than a distributor. And what we don't know, someone on this net probably will. If you can't play the game with the big boys, then don't walk out on the field. If you had a clue as to how your product could be built into large projects you would not even think of trying to impose this serialization scheme on your customers. Do you REALLY think that a company who has perhaps 5 or 10 thousand installations across the nation is going to even consider administering such a bureaucratic nightmare. What's worse is that you've apparently (if the press can be believed) hidden behind the lame excuse that "your dealers made you do it". Where have we heard that one before. Sure, we could (and probably would) negotiate a special deal. But to me that would be capitulation. If you'd worry more about the important things like installs that work and less about incidental copying (which in reality is free advertising in discuise), perhaps your priorities would be more in sync with the marketplace. IF Everex or Intel or some other company wants to fill the shoes apparently vacated by SCO and ISC, and can build a quality product, and can support it (call Wordperfect's 800 number if you need a lesson in how it's done right.), I'll be the first to pour money in. Or if Interactive were to announce publicly that serialization is really just a bad experiment gone wrong, and that they really do intend to fufill their technical support obligation, I'd again be interested. The Fortune 500 market is quite a comfortable place to be once you qualify. Until then, I guess they'll have to make it on Usenet site sales and onesies, twosies sales through dealers and distributors. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers. {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA**
jim@sco.COM (Jim Sullivan) (07/12/90)
In article <3126@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: > >SCO was the client's initial choice for the OS. It had a lot of >support within the organization. Then SCO started their serialization >crap. It is my policy to do everything within my power to kick out >vendors who implement such systems.... > <deleted> >We found that damn serialization >card just like the one that got SCO the boot. Guess what? ISC is >getting the same boot that SCO did. We will most likely end up with >an AIX solution as much as I hate IBM. While I can understand John's problems with the administrative problems that serialization keys generate, I feel that there is a general mis-understanding of the reasoning behind the use of serialization keys. While I do not speak for my company, only for myself, I do feel I understand the reasoning behind serialization codes. People steal software and serialization codes are an attempt to prevent people from stealing software. In the general environment, they are a good idea. I have, on numereous occassions, dealt with customers who have purchased one copy of the software and then installed it on several machines and then called to complain that they are having trouble getting the different machines to talk to each other! We've distributed software with serialization codes for years (this was before we became SCO Canada), with few complaints, except for the people who were trying to cheat us. Software piracy exists and until the ethics and morals of the software user community improve, companies will have to go to serialization codes and such to try and prevent software piracy. If anyone has a better idea of how to prevent multiple copies of the software to be installed, then please, present their solution. As a final note, it is my understanding that SCO has the ability to provide site-liciences for large installations. Perhaps you should talk directly to your SCO sales rep and see what he has to offer. Again, I am speaking only for myself. >-- >John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress >Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply >Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers. >{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA** -- Jim Sullivan Youth Culture Killed My Puppy! SCO Canada Inc. (Formerly HCR Corporation) ...!uunet!hcr!jim jim@hcr.com Opinions are mine. 416 922 1937
brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) (07/12/90)
In article <3126@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
<
<Particularly this new innovation of ISC's called Copy Protection (or
<serialization, if you like.) I discovered this new feature this week as I
<opened the box on 62 lbs of ISC Unix 2.2.x - everything they make,
<we bought. I installed the package on a Compaq 33 mhz DeskPro. Said
<installation, while a bit more glitzy than 2.0.2, had all the same
<old problems and still required me to whiz around with vi editing this
<configuration file or that. If corporate hogs like NCR can write
<interactive system administration scripts that work, why can't interactive?
<After the custom configuration, it has run for a couple of days
<without incident. I really can't compare the speed with 2.0.2 since I
<never had it on hardware this fast.
<
<SCO was the client's initial choice for the OS. It had a lot of
<support within the organization. Then SCO started their serialization
<crap. It is my policy to do everything within my power to kick out
<vendors who implement such systems. I sold the concept of trying
<a (to them) new product - ISC unix. Benchmarking showed large
<improvements in disk I/O performance over SCO Xenix. So we ordered
<the 62 lbs of ISC unix in order to build a prototype. The package
<arrived by barge :-) We opened it. We found that damn serialization
<card just like the one that got SCO the boot. Guess what? ISC is
<getting the same boot that SCO did. We will most likely end up with
<an AIX solution as much as I hate IBM.
What-a-minute!!! What copy protection, what serialization? Please
explain what ISC has done.
Sounds like I don't want 2.2 either.
--
harvard\ att!nicmad\ spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
rutgers/ decvax!nicmad/ INET:<@spool.cs.wisc.edu,@astroatc:brown@vidiot>cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) (07/12/90)
Please don't flame me to hard. OS/2 1.2 provides a much better solution. Costs less, easier to ADMIN, and needs a lot less iron. A much richer programming environment and soooo much easier to connect to a network. I know this is a Unix based network, but if one evaluates OBJECTIVELY, OS/2 vs. Unix OS/2 wins in most of the categories, not all, but most. The most important ones. I am an old Unix man from the v.7 days and most of my projects have been in Unix. I started looking at OS/2 so I could tear it to pieces, but before I knew it I couldn't let go of OS/2. I now have been working on a major OS/2 project for almost a year; Unix has it's place, but not in the general business world. Unix is simply not designed for the everyday business user. Do not just compare programs when looking at OS/2 vs. Unix. For that fact it shouldn't be "OS/2 vs. Unix". OS/2 is meant for general business and Unix for scientific and acadamic. The only reason that Unix ever started becoming popular in general business is that it offered low cost multi-tasking and networking. It did not offer user friendly-ness. OS/2 was designed with the general business user in mind. Let Unix have it's market and let OS/2 take it's place in the general business world. This controversy only comes up when emotions are involved; look from a logical standpoint and everyone will have a working system. Cy Foughty Bell:214.519.4237 -- Cy Foughty DSC Communications, Inc. 1000 Coit Rd., Plano,TX 75075 Setting Sun's are a bright tommorr
howardl@wb3ffv.ampr.org ( WB3FFV) (07/13/90)
From article <604@vidiot.UUCP>, by brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot): > > What-a-minute!!! What copy protection, what serialization? Please > explain what ISC has done. > > Sounds like I don't want 2.2 either. Hello, The ISC UNIX 386 Release 2.2 now requires you to enter your serial number and authorization key (Just like SCO) if you want to load the system. I personally find this to be a real pain in the tail, but at least they only ask you for it once. It really annoys me when I get asked the the same information again from SCO when loading the link kit. If you don't want a system that requires an authorization key, then you DON'T want to buy the new 2.2 release from Interactive! Other than that it seems like a really nice OS... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet : howardl@wb3ffv.ampr.org | Howard D. Leadmon UUCP : wb3ffv!howardl | Advanced Business Solutions TELEX : 152252474 | 210 E. Lombard St - Suite 410 Telephone : (301)-576-8635 | Baltimore, MD 21202
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (07/13/90)
brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes: ><Particularly this new innovation of ISC's called Copy Protection (or ><serialization, if you like.) I discovered this new feature this week as I ><opened the box on 62 lbs of ISC Unix 2.2.x - everything they make, >What-a-minute!!! What copy protection, what serialization? Please >explain what ISC has done. Easy. You open the "read me first" package and you find this card with a serial number and a cypher key printed on it. You boot from the install boot floppy and the first thing it asks for is that serial number and the key. Get either wrong and it won't install. Same thing with many addon packages. The 2-user-to-unlimited upgrade is another example. I've had a chance to poke around for a few minutes and I see that the program that does the authentication is /etc/.auth It apparently writes the serial somewhere in the kernal after the authentication is complete. I don't know yet what else it does but I do know that much. This is merely a hassle for a hobby/news system. Imagine, though a customer with more than one box. Now imagine several boxes. Now image a thousand boxes, all maintained remotely. Can you imagine the accounting nightmare this would be? I won't even consider such a system. I've seen too many VMS systems knocked down by DEC's license manager to risk my reputation and my client's money with such tripe. >Sounds like I don't want 2.2 either. Yeah, me either. I heard through the grapevine that the fecal matter is hitting the air handler at ISC over this. So if anyone else on the net feels as I do about copy protection, now would be an opportune time to call ISC and make your feelings known. Help stamp out copy protection in your lifetime. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers. {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA**
hogue@hsi.UUCP (Jim Hogue) (07/13/90)
In article <1990Jul11.164044.7241@sco.COM> jim@iggy.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: >[ ... ] People steal software and serialization >codes are an attempt to prevent people from stealing software. In the general >environment, they are a good idea. I have, on numereous occassions, dealt with >customers who have purchased one copy of the software and then installed it on >several machines and then called to complain that they are having trouble >getting the different machines to talk to each other! We've distributed >software with serialization codes for years (this was before we became SCO >Canada), with few complaints, except for the people who were trying to cheat >us. > >Software piracy exists and until the ethics and morals of the software user >community improve, companies will have to go to serialization codes and such >to try and prevent software piracy. [ ... ] And it will continue to exist. People have always stolen and they always will. A friend once asked if an alarm would help prevent his car stereo from being stolen. To which the cop replied, no, but you will know sooner that it has been stolen and it will be a bigger hassle for you to get in and out of the car. So what to do? I have found that companies often cheat, as you mention above, to try something. If what they are trying works (and they get the support to make it work) then they will say lets go with it and then they will buy the extra licensees that are necessary. I have often tried a pirated piece of software to find out if I wanted it or not (this usually includes calls to the support people, because that is a big part of what I will be paying for). If I don't want it, I trash it, if I do I buy it. You should have helped the above mentioned client, got there system going for them and then passed the info on to sales. Sales should try and sell them a multi-cpu licensee or multiple licensees. If sales fails (the nice route) support should call back to see how their systems are running and if it is appearant that they are still running illegally then the accounting people should start the paper stream. Legitimate companies (and therefore people) will pay for something they are using, the others never will no matter what you do. Remember that support is supposed to help the customers, software should be easy for the owner to install and use. Think of a company that sells a product under SCO and also sells SCO XENIX. Imagine a few hundred clients and every time they have to reinstall the op sys they call support and say whats my serialization number? I think its zx234xcx34, hmm that didn't work, well lets see how about . . . Simple solution? Sure! Only install one copy of the os on all machines (i.e., one serialization number for all machines) and just keep all the others in a vault to prove you paid for a licensee, just in case you get sued. Better solution? Get rid of that security stuff that gets in the way of the legitimate user and seems to pose no problem for the illegitimate user! -- It was too wet to go out. Too cold to play ball. So we sat in the house. We did nothing at all -- Dr. Seuss So they invented computers! Jim Hogue hogue@hsi.com or {uunet, yale}!hsi!hogue
art@pilikia.pegasus.com (Art Neilson) (07/14/90)
In article <783@digi.lonestar.org> cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: > >Please don't flame me to hard. OS/2 1.2 provides a much >better solution. Costs less, easier to ADMIN, and needs a >lot less iron. A much richer programming environment and soooo >much easier to connect to a network. I know this is a Unix >based network, but if one evaluates OBJECTIVELY, OS/2 vs. Unix >OS/2 wins in most of the categories, not all, but most. The most PLEASE don't post this kind of crap here, at best you'll only start a flame fest. If I want to read about OS/2 I'll go read the comp.os.os2 newsgroup. Cancel this thing, please! -- Arthur W. Neilson III | ARPA: art@pilikia.pegasus.com Bank of Hawaii Tech Support | UUCP: uunet!ucsd!nosc!pegasus!pilikia!art
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/14/90)
In article <783@digi.lonestar.org> cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: > Please don't flame me to hard. OS/2 1.2 provides a much > better solution. Costs less, easier to ADMIN, and needs a > lot less iron. Let's see... I have run UNIX systems on a stock PC/XT with 640K RAM. Yep, OS/2 needs a lot less iron. > A much richer programming environment Yep. You have Microsoft C, and Microsoft C. > and soooo > much easier to connect to a network. How can you possibly connect a single-user box to a network? A network is inherently a multi-user environment. What do you do... give up on security or run everything in a strict client-or-server setup? > I know this is a Unix > based network, but if one evaluates OBJECTIVELY, OS/2 vs. Unix > OS/2 wins in most of the categories, not all, but most. OS/2 is probably adequate for a single-user workstation, but there are much cheaper alternatives for that. How about a system that supports useful multitasking in as little as 512K? > For that fact it > shouldn't be "OS/2 vs. Unix". No, it should be OS/2 versus AmigaOS, Microsoft Windows, and Mac System 7. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (07/14/90)
cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: > Please don't flame me to hard... Why not? Normal USENET rules say you get flames greater than or equal to what you deserve. Trying to start an operating-system religious war will get you plenty of flames...unless people just decide you're a dolt and ignore you. >...OS/2 1.2 provides a much > better solution... Depends on what it's solving. You might guess, from the title of the newsgroup, that folks here are interested in UNIX systems for 386 machines. OS/2 isn't much of a solution to that. [18 lines of opinion and misstatements about UNIX, followed by...] > This controversy only comes up when emotions are involved; look > from a logical standpoint and everyone will have a working system. I'd never realized how far superior OS/2 is! And, silly me, I thought it was only available on PC-class machines. I guess I just missed the announcements of versions we could run on our VAXen, Sun 3s, RTs, Sparcs, and RS/6000s...but if you say it's a viable solution, it must run on those platforms, right? -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Reality is neat! It works even if you don't believe in it!
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (07/14/90)
In article <783@digi.lonestar.org> cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: >shouldn't be "OS/2 vs. Unix". OS/2 is meant for general business and >Unix for scientific and acadamic. The only reason that Unix ever >started becoming popular in general business is that it offered low >cost multi-tasking and networking. It did not offer user friendly-ness. No. Unix became popular in business because it provided a non-proprietary multi-USER system. Until very recently (like the last 3 or so years) the only single user multi-tasking unix boxes were the workstations (like Suns, appollos, etc). Note that I am not implying that these boxes do not also provide a multi-user solution, just saying that 4 or 5 years ago if you found a business unix system it was almost surely a multi-user system. Unix's big calling is that it provides a "compatible" interface over a wide variety of hardware from pc's to mainframes. OS/2 can't compare in that regard. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (07/14/90)
> > Yeah, me either. I heard through the grapevine that the fecal matter > is hitting the air handler at ISC over this. So if anyone else on > the net feels as I do about copy protection, now would be an opportune > time to call ISC and make your feelings known. Help stamp out > copy protection in your lifetime. > Does anyone have some especially good phone numbers or names to contact? The front lines don't seem to be getting the word back to the guys in command. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) (07/15/90)
In article <1990Jul13.223922.13623@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: >> Please don't flame me to hard... > >>...OS/2 1.2 provides a much >> better solution... > >[18 lines of opinion and misstatements about UNIX, followed by...] >> This controversy only comes up when emotions are involved; look >> from a logical standpoint and everyone will have a working system. > >I'd never realized how far superior OS/2 is! And, silly me, I thought it >was only available on PC-class machines. I guess I just missed the >announcements of versions we could run on our VAXen, Sun 3s, RTs, Sparcs, >and RS/6000s...but if you say it's a viable solution, it must run on those Don't be silly Dick. Everyone *knows* that hardly anyone uses those machines. They don't run MS-DOS :-) Personally I thought everyone was buying Unix for business so that they could put large numbers of people on low cost systems. When OS/2 allows a business to put 24 people on a system doing word processing maybe it'll go over. OS/2 seems to want to function as low end single user workstation environment. This is fine for many people who need that. But the many businesses can't afford to even put networked DOS machines on everyones desk. They would rather just put a small Unix box in that doesn't need to be networked and still will support dozens of people doing simple things like accounting or word processing. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice)
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (07/15/90)
The biggest complaint I have about serializing is that there is no
documented way to reserialize the system. If I have ten machines and ten
legal *paid for* copies of {SCO,ISC} I can't just install one from the
72 disks (that's full ODT, others may vary) and then do the rest of the
boxes by copting the installed system and reserializing.
I could copy onto tape, over TCP, or by dropping the disk from systems
2-10 into system 1 and doing a physical copy. But the method for
reserializing is arcane enough that I can't be sure that I have it
right, and no one gives me the command to do it.
As a result I either waste a few days of my time reinstalling from
disk, buy unix from someone who doesn't serialize, or run one serial
number on ten machines. Take a guess...
This is a really stupid thing to do, since it in no way keeps the
dishonest person from taking the key to another machine as well as the
disks. All it does is create a great hassle. And if you lose those damn
cards and have to reinstall... bah, one of the things I don't like about
SCO.
Hint, you can NFS mount a file with the serial info for each machine
and copy it frequently to each machine so if the main box dies you don't
lose it. You used to be able to xerox the black on white cards from SCO,
but now they're black on red and maybe you can read it, maybe you can't.
--
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -mebrown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) (07/15/90)
In article <1990Jul11.164044.7241@sco.COM> jim@iggy.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes:
<While I do not speak for my company, only for myself, I do feel I understand the
<reasoning behind serialization codes. People steal software and serialization
<codes are an attempt to prevent people from stealing software. In the general
<environment, they are a good idea. I have, on numereous occassions, dealt with
<customers who have purchased one copy of the software and then installed it on
<several machines and then called to complain that they are having trouble
<getting the different machines to talk to each other! We've distributed
<software with serialization codes for years (this was before we became SCO
<Canada), with few complaints, except for the people who were trying to cheat
<us.
What good are the keys if the person that does the installing on multiple
machines has the key? The key will only stop someone who rips off the software
without managing to rip off the key code.
For the real user, it only hinders, not helping in any manner.
--
harvard\ att!nicmad\ spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
rutgers/ decvax!nicmad/ INET:<@spool.cs.wisc.edu,@astroatc:brown@vidiot>tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) (07/16/90)
In article <Q2N4:X7@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <783@digi.lonestar.org> cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: > > > A much richer programming environment > Yep. You have Microsoft C, and Microsoft C. Well, just to keep things fair, I'll note that at least Lattice C and Zortech C++ both produce OS/2 binaries. Zortech's 2.1 compiler is reportedly a better OS/2 environment than MSC 6.0. > > > and soooo > > much easier to connect to a network. > > How can you possibly connect a single-user box to a network? A network > is inherently a multi-user environment. What do you do... give up on > security or run everything in a strict client-or-server setup? DOS systems run just dandy on networks--that's one of the things that keeps the wind in DOS's sails (sales?). Both DOS and OS/2 can operate in peer network configurations, sharing printers, disks, modems, CD-ROMS...you name it. Networking is not inherently anything. With a little imagination, even the strangest of systems can be networked. I run TCP/IP and NFS on an 8086-based laptop and a Xircom Pocket Ethernet adapter. I was prepared to be disappointed, but it works great. > > For that fact it > > shouldn't be "OS/2 vs. Unix". > > No, it should be OS/2 versus AmigaOS, Microsoft Windows, and Mac System 7. Can I run AmigaOS or Mac System 7 on other vendors' hardware? Let's not let this discussion degenerate to the petty "is not!", "is so!" back-and-forth that typically dominates OS discussions. I'd really like to see some worthwhile commentary from both sides. We don't need to declare a winner in the end, but maybe some useful information will come out as a result. Don't count OS/2 or any OS out without a sensible argument. > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> -- +--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+ | NET: decvax!maxx!tyager -or- uunet!bytepb!maxx!tyager | | I speak only for myself "UNIX: It's not a job, | +-------------------------------------it's a Jihad!" -co-worker------------+
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (07/16/90)
In article <3126@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: [ I'm singin' the blues about Interactive ... ] >>Wait a minute! The AT&T license fee has been paid, we gotta send in original >>boot/install diskettes, Everex could legally upgrade us just like SCO and ISC >>did when Microport hit the wall. I'm interested, is Everex interested? Charles Hedrick wrote me and reminded me that ownership of a license isn't entitlement to an upgrade. If the vendor chooses to ugrade you, AT&T gets the same royalty as if you were a brand new customer. OK, so much for that theory and thanks to Charles for pointing this out. >I'd absolutely leap at a chance to replace Interactive AND/OR SCO with >a product whose company understands what support is all about, is able I'm following up a fairly old article, it sat in my box for a while, while I pondered this reply (to the net). Personally, I have ditched Interactive 2.2 because of serialization, bugs, and lack of tech support. I don't urge anyone to follow suit, but I've got too much (I'm a sole proprietorship) cash invested in 386/ix to risk another dime on something as "exciting" as 2.2. I own/run a business and it thrives on profit, not excitement. >to produce a package that meets the quality standard of the DOS world from >even as far back as 5 years ago (you know, things that generally work like >they should, documentation that bears some resemblance to what's shipped, John, I don't think it's entirely fair to equate the DOS world with Interactive UNIX or any other UNIX for that matter. The "quality standard of the DOS world" is pretty sad until you have curried and combed out the pearls. DOS runs and runs well on specific platforms, UNIX crosses all the borders. I whole- heartedly agree with your conclusion (ditch Interactive) but I disagree with the comparison. [ more DOS comparison deleted...] >we bought. I installed the package on a Compaq 33 mhz DeskPro. Said >installation, while a bit more glitzy than 2.0.2, had all the same >old problems and still required me to whiz around with vi editing this Here's where he scares me even farther away from 386/ix v2.2. John says that all of the nagging old problems are there, or at least enough of them to feel like they're all there, but some new layers of distraction have been added. I don't want glitzy or exciting installations, I want dead, dirt simple, thoughtless effort. I don't want to have to figure out some nifty script or find my way into some programmer's head to figure something out; just lay it down on the disk and give me a login prompt. No thanks, the excitement doesn't enchant me. [ lots of good reasons for not buying Interactive if you install/support multiple systems... ] >even consider administering such a bureaucratic nightmare. What's worse >is that you've apparently (if the press can be believed) hidden behind >the lame excuse that "your dealers made you do it". Where have I issued an invitation for any dealer/reseller to step forward and say that they asked for it (serialization), the silence has been deafening. Perhaps that means that there are net.people and isc.people. That would not be new, there have been sco.net.people and sco.non.net.people for years. It challenges my imagination a little that if the resellers asked for it, not a single reseller responded to my admission that I'm a reseller and asked if another asked for it. WHO (outside of Interactive) ASKED FOR IT?!? Never mind; the net.people know. >John Thanks for the follow-up John and sorry for the bulk. I had to sit on the article for a few days to make sure that I was making a business decision and not just reacting emotionally. Nope, I run a business, I depend on happy customers, I must maximize my productivity to make a profit, and Interactive keeps building obstacles. I don't fabricate or imagine them, Interactive constructs them. They've got the last of my bucks and join the list with Microport, Santa Cruz Operation, and American Telephone & Telegraph. Jeezus the list is shrinking as firms become prosperous! -- Bill Kennedy usenet {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill
martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) (07/17/90)
In article <1990Jul11.164044.7241@sco.COM> jim@iggy.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: [some lines deleted] >Software piracy exists and until the ethics and morals of the software user >community improve, companies will have to go to serialization codes and such >to try and prevent software piracy. If anyone has a better idea of how to >prevent multiple copies of the software to be installed, then please, present >their solution. Please, can anybody explain how serialization "prevents" software piracy? If *I* load the floppys on a second system, *I* have the key. Same if I hand the disks to someone else. Is the "serialization" meant to protect against the rare case that somebody steals the floppys? But what if I keep the sheet with the key close to the floppys? (And: Is it explicitly forbidden to make a note of the key on the label of the floppys, to protect myself against the - much more probable - case I loose that sheet?) Furthermore, some (most?) serialization schemes don't prevent making an operational copy from an allready installed (or "serialized") version of a program. So, what does it really buy? -- Martin Weitzel, email: martin@mwtech.UUCP, voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/17/90)
In article <55@maxx.UUCP> tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) writes: > DOS systems run just dandy on networks Depends on what you mean by "just dandy". Every time I have to interact with folks using a DOS network I'm frustrated by the things they *can't* do, that I just expect to be able to do. > --that's one of the things that keeps > the wind in DOS's sails (sales?). Both DOS and OS/2 can operate in peer > network configurations, sharing printers, disks, modems, CD-ROMS...you name > it. Such as remotely accessing a DOS machine's files without having to turn that machine into a dedicated server. Sure, you can ALL access the file server... but you can't get to each other's local files. > > No, it should be OS/2 versus AmigaOS, Microsoft Windows, and Mac System 7. > Can I run AmigaOS or Mac System 7 on other vendors' hardware? Since OS/2 is restricted to one hardware platform this is pretty much irrelevant, but you can run Windows, GEM, and Mac/OS on an Amiga. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (07/17/90)
>>>Wait a minute! The AT&T license fee has been paid, we gotta send in original >>>boot/install diskettes, Everex could legally upgrade us just like SCO and ISC >>>did when Microport hit the wall. I'm interested, is Everex interested? > >Charles Hedrick wrote me and reminded me that ownership of a license isn't >entitlement to an upgrade. If the vendor chooses to ugrade you, AT&T gets the >same royalty as if you were a brand new customer. OK, so much for that >theory and thanks to Charles for pointing this out. > I don't know what AT&T's current policy on upgrades is but if you are simply going from one vendor to another with the same AT&T version of Unix then I would think there is a definite possibility that the first license would be sufficient. I think that's what happened with the Microport business. And, although I don't think it applys here anyway, I'm not so sure about AT&T demanding the same royalty for an upgrade as for a new purchase. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
jim@sco.COM (Jim Sullivan) (07/17/90)
In article <609@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes: >In article <1990Jul11.164044.7241@sco.COM> jim@iggy.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: ><While I do not speak for my company, only for myself, I do feel I understand the ><reasoning behind serialization codes. People steal software and serialization ><codes are an attempt to prevent people from stealing software. > >What good are the keys if the person that does the installing on multiple >machines has the key? The key will only stop someone who rips off the software >without managing to rip off the key code. I did say that they are an attempt to prevent people from installing the software on multiple machines. I didn't say that they work. > >For the real user, it only hinders, not helping in any manner. Actually, for the real user, he/she never knows that they system has been serialized, since they are running some application on top of UNIX. The person who is inconvenienced is the system administrator, who has an addition administrative task to perform. >-- > harvard\ att!nicmad\ spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown >Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown > rutgers/ decvax!nicmad/ INET:<@spool.cs.wisc.edu,@astroatc:brown@vidiot> -- Jim Sullivan Youth Culture Killed My Puppy! SCO Canada Inc. (Formerly HCR Corporation) ...!uunet!hcr!jim jim@hcr.com Opinions are mine. 416 922 1937
tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) (07/18/90)
In article <MPP4MEA@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <55@maxx.UUCP> tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) writes: > > DOS systems run just dandy on networks > > Depends on what you mean by "just dandy". Every time I have to interact with > folks using a DOS network I'm frustrated by the things they *can't* do, that > I just expect to be able to do. DOS systems DO run just dandy on networks--I was referring to networks of DOS and OS/2 systems. They are quite useful on TCP/IP networks, as well. Some of the anonymous FTP sites out there are running on DOS systems. Yes, you have to give them over to it. But how else could you set up such an arrangement for around $1000? > Such as remotely accessing a DOS machine's files without having to turn that > machine into a dedicated server. Sure, you can ALL access the file server... > but you can't get to each other's local files. Not so. We just published a product focus on DOS peer-to-peer LANs. You can share files and other resources with impunity. Every machine can be both a client and server without sacrificing the ability to run normal DOS applications. Some vendors do this better than others, but the best of the LANS bring to bear all of the power of a UNIX network except remote-execution capability. > > Can I run AmigaOS or Mac System 7 on other vendors' hardware? > > Since OS/2 is restricted to one hardware platform this is pretty much > irrelevant, but you can run Windows, GEM, and Mac/OS on an Amiga. Using your example, I can also run OS/2 on that same Amiga with a 286 Bridgecard. Does that make it as "portable" as the others? I'm no great lover of DOS or OS/2, but if we're going to trash them, let's have good reasons. > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> -- +--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+ | UUCP: decvax!maxx!tyager NET: maxx!tyager@bytepb.byte.com | | Always looking for qualified UNIX,Mac,DOS and OS/2 software reviewers-- | +--mail to "reviews" instead of "tyager" above.---I speak only for myself.-+
langston@frontier.UUCP (Kevin Langston) (07/18/90)
In article <835@mwtech.UUCP> martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes: >If *I* load the floppys on a second system, *I* have the key. Same if I >hand the disks to someone else. Is the "serialization" meant to protect >against the rare case that somebody steals the floppys? But what if I keep >the sheet with the key close to the floppys? (And: Is it explicitly >forbidden to make a note of the key on the label of the floppys, to >protect myself against the - much more probable - case I loose that >sheet?) An Addison, Texas company that I do some HW and SW support for has about a dozen legitimate copies of SCO Xenix 2.1 through 2.3. The documentation is spread from one end of the building to the other. All of the original disks are stored in two adjacent offices, and appear to have complete sets of all the optional packages, DS w/CGI, Lyrix, VP/ix etc. Apparently there have been a number of people who have done SW installs and upgrades over the last few years. As a result the little pink or white activation key slips are almost nonexistant. I think I have enough for two complete systems. I wish SCO, etc would print the activation key/serialization info on the disk jackets themselves. That would at least make it less likely for honest customers to shoot themselves in the foot. Disclaimer: I'm a customer, too! -- Kevin Langston @ Frontier Information Systems (where in the world is) Lewisville, Texas UUCP: *!texbell!egsner!frontier!langston
jank@ttidca.TTI.COM (Michael Jank) (07/18/90)
I have the solution: Software vendors should price their products such that businesses could afford to purchase copies for each machine. I have been frustrated many times by vendors who will not sell site licenses. Software is overpriced, has little resale value, and obsoletes itself so fast it is painful to make any software purchases. The real kick in the teeth is that it is the distributers who are making all the money when the programmers, the people who did the work, receive less than 5% of the profits. How much money do you think I could get for my slightly used OS2 1.0 software development kit right now? (Over a thousand bucks wasted here.) I think people want to be honest and do what is right but the pricing structure is a tremendous disincentive to do so.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/18/90)
In article <62@maxx.UUCP> tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) writes: > Some of the anonymous FTP sites out there are running on DOS systems. Yes, > you have to give them over to it. But how else could you set up such an > arrangement for around $1000? I guess it depends on whether such an arrangement is considered adequate. Even if just a pure server is what you want, the disk drives are going to be the dominant cost, so why not spring for an extra grand or so and get a compute server as well? > Some vendors do this better than others, but the best of the > LANS bring to bear all of the power of a UNIX network except remote-execution > capability. And multiuser protection, and soft recovery from program failures, and... > > > Can I run AmigaOS or Mac System 7 on other vendors' hardware? > > Since OS/2 is restricted to one hardware platform this is pretty much > > irrelevant, but you can run Windows, GEM, and Mac/OS on an Amiga. > Using your example, I can also run OS/2 on that same Amiga with a 286 > Bridgecard. Does that make it as "portable" as the others? You missed the point... none of them is portable. They are all proprietary operating systems running on a single CPU family. When you can run OS/2 on everything from a PC/XT to a Cray come tell me. Right now it fails at both ends. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (07/19/90)
In article <835@mwtech.UUCP> martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes: >Please, can anybody explain how serialization "prevents" software piracy? In the case where you have multiple machines networked together, serialization does prevent (well, make harder anyway) you from buying one copy of the software and installing it everywhere. That's the function of the "copyright daemon." You are not prevented from installing the same copy on several machines NOT networked together. It seems the former case is what has these vendors scared. The error (I think) lies in coupling serialization so tightly with installation. The multi-CPU user has a legitimate interest in being able to install all his bought-and-paid-for copies of software from one single set of diskettes, rather than from 15 different media sets. That way he KNOWS the software is identical everywhere -- nobody slipped in a "silent upgrade" ('But we only changed FIVE LINES OF CODE!!!') or a duplicating error between the manufacture of sets #48327 and #48450. There ought to be a second serialization operation which can be performed after all software is installed (from any media set). These are just standard site licensing kinds of issues. But a 386 UNIX "site" might just be 2 machines. UNIX vendors should accomodate small sites, not just Fortune 500 megasites. -- "Just when we finally got good at this, we \_i_/ Tom Neff run out of planets." - a Voyager scientist --[o]-- tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (07/19/90)
> > I'm always amazed to witness the logical jumps from false > assumption to conclusion. Yes, each UNIX distribution carries > with it the UNIX license as an INTEGRAL component. That which > is covered by ATT license is part of a larger entity and not > separable or usable as "credit" toward an alternative platform. > I must admit that it has been quite some time since I've read a Unix license agreement. But the ones I have read bore no resemblance to this description. The AT&T license is necessarily separate since it doesn't apply to the porters code. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
news@brian386.uucp (News Administrator) (07/20/90)
In article <3169@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes: > >a system. I've seen too many VMS systems knocked down by DEC's >license manager to risk my reputation and my client's money with such >tripe. > >>Sounds like I don't want 2.2 either. > >Yeah, me either. I heard through the grapevine that the fecal matter >is hitting the air handler at ISC over this. So if anyone else on But it's not that difficult. I'll probably get a nasty gram from ISC for this, but installation is really quite simple. You install everything properly on the first system, and make a take backup of the complete system. Then you make your own boot disk and steal most of the INSTALL and INSTALL2. Then you do the upgrade on the other boxes in your office. Even attached over TCP/IP there is no problem with this. brian BTW> Make sure you have enough licenses to cover your machines, just in case someone wants to make a stink about it. The license says you are allowed to run the software on 1 machine, it doesn't specify you can't use the same serial number on all of them.
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (07/20/90)
Not trying to stifle this discussion - I certainly understand the occasional need to "vent". But one of my sources tells me that certain changes are in the works that may answer some of the complaints aired in this forum. I for one hope this turns out to be the case.
vjs@calcite.UUCP (Vernon Schryver) (07/20/90)
In article <15684@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > > In the case where you have multiple machines networked together, > serialization does prevent (well, make harder anyway) you from buying > one copy of the software and installing it everywhere. That's the > function of the "copyright daemon." ... In another newsgroup/mailing list, there have been allegations that one vendor's anti-theft scheme consists of a daemon every machine on the network that very frequently broadcasts something. I do not know if these allegations are true. If they are, I would sympathize those who say they refuse to allow machines with this anti-social pathology to be connected to their networks. On a large network, it would be worse than the Apple crime. The number of vendors of UNIX for 386 machines means there would be no reason to tolerate it, unlike the Apple protocol. Given today's network monitoring tools, from LEDs on transceivers to portable analyzers to network monitoring software that can run on many UNIX and most DOS machines, such pollution would be painfully evident. Given public domain IGMP, the ease of using link level multicasts, and "lisense brokers" that can be lisensed HP/Apollo and several other companies, there would be no excuse for an ethical programmer to implement such a thing as has been alledged. During the day, I have a little to do with a network of dozens of ethernets with thousands of machines. There is reason to think no machine on that network is running software from the vendor in question. I have seen more than enough of the Apple broadcasts. Vernon Schryver vjs@calcite.uucp
jimmy@icjapan.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) (07/20/90)
Tom Reingold <tr@samadams.princeton.edu> says: > I am amazed that a basic point has not yet been made yet! > > Copy protection, serialization and other methods may prevent illegal > copies. But they do not necessarily make someone buy a product! If > someone can't copy something illegally, he may just do without it. He > may not be a potential sale at all. This is accurate. I know cases of students (and others) who pool together to buy expensive software, including the Unix operating system. Illegal copying is taking place, but no revenue is being lost because there is no way each person could have afforded the product on his/her own. In fact, a sale may have been gained. And Michael Jank <jank@ttidca.TTI.COM> says: > I have the solution: Software vendors should price their products such > that businesses could afford to purchase copies for each machine. Another excellent point. Consider how difficult it is to convince management to change over from DOS to Unix when you get to the issue of cost and you get to tell them that their $70 operating system must be replaced by a $1500 system, ON EACH MACHINE. This may be not much less than what they paid for the machines themselves. Again, a foolproof copy-protection system may cost the vendor sales as a few legal copies bring in more revenue than no legal copies. Why don't vendors offer, for a cheaper price, a license to load software onto an additional machine. No shipping charges. No printing charges. Their incremental cost is zero. We don't need ten copies of the manual to TCP/IP. On the support issue, I must say that when asked (and I'm asked a lot) I used to recommend that people buy Interactive Unix. Now, I ususally recommend ESIX. Support is the reason, and Interactive better fix it soon or they are going to alienate their entire customer base. When in a jam, I used to be able to call Interactive in Santa Monica and speak with someone who knew something. Now I am asked to pay $645 a year for the privledge, not of speaking with someone immediately, but of getting a callback the next day. When I am out at a customer's site and have a problem, I need an answer fairly soon. I can't wait around a day for someone to get back to me. Another point that has not been mentioned here is that the $645 buys "15 telephone consultations". A serious problem could lead me to use up a third of those in a week. I wouldn't even mind paying $1/minute on a 900 number for support, if I really got to speak with someone knowledgable. -- Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ <jimmy@pic.ucla.edu> or <jimmy@denwa.info.com> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy> Fax: +81 3 237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 222 8429
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (07/20/90)
In article <1990Jul17.123023.11819@sco.COM> jim@iggy.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: > [ regarding serialization ] >Actually, for the real user, he/she never knows that they system has been >serialized, since they are running some application on top of UNIX. The >person who is inconvenienced is the system administrator, who has an addition >administrative task to perform. In the case of the SCO TCP/IP package, where they communicate on an undocumented socket and lock the system if two match, I think that would definantly inconvenience users. If you're going to put this serial number/ installation key garbage into software, make it possible to find out what the serial number of an installed package is. Put it into a file somewhere, a comment in /etc/profile or something, so that a backup tape can be looked at to find out which of a dozen packages needs to be reinstalled after the crash. In any case, I consider locking up systems in networks to be improper. There should be a message echoed to the console about the conflict, and then a normal shutdown. I'm not having to deal with this yet, since I have a fairly small number of *nix system, and they're wired via serial links. Inconveniencing sysadmins doesn't get you more business, in most smaller (say, 2-5 systems) sites the admin tasks are an additional duty someone does in there copious free time when they're not coding. Those people don't need or want any inconvenience, including sudden system crashes. Users don't want to recreate files lost as the result of such crashes, where the admin had 5 sets of software to install and only unwrapped one, without knowing any better (this lockup situation is undocumented, remember). If I had a product do this to me, I'd tell the boss not to buy any more. We can't afford the downtime. We're a suspicious and untrusting lot to begin with... I should add the following: 1) I'm primarily an admin, with a few other duties. Effectively, it's full-time work. 2) The above are my opinions, not SCIs'. I say this because.... 3) This company resells both ISC and SCO products, with the systems we manufacture. >Jim Sullivan Youth Culture Killed My Puppy! >SCO Canada Inc. (Formerly HCR Corporation) >...!uunet!hcr!jim jim@hcr.com Opinions are mine. >416 922 1937 -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) "The esteemed gentleman says I called him a liar. That's true, and I regret it." Retief, a character created by Keith Laumer.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (07/21/90)
I think the copy-protection daemon discussion is a useful one, but please let's put it under its own subject. INTERACTIVE UNIX does *not* use the "cpd" mechanism, so there's no point in leaving the discussion under the old "Interactive and me..." header. (Yeah, I suppose I'm getting touchy. But I'd rather not see us getting flamed for doing things we don't do.) -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Programs, not politics.
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (07/24/90)
In article <1990Jul17.123023.11819@sco.COM> jim@iggy.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: >Actually, for the real user, he/she never knows that they system has been >serialized, since they are running some application on top of UNIX. The >person who is inconvenienced is the system administrator, who has an addition >administrative task to perform. How does this affect the ability to move the system & applications to another machine transparently? We generally keep spare parts and spare machine around for critical things. If we couldn't whip the last backup tape onto a new machine (or copy over the network if we have a little warning) and go on, I'd be upset, to say the least. Do other people have infallable hardware or can you afford to have everyone sit around while the adminsitrator rebuilds a machine from serialized floppies? Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
ed@maxed (Ed Whittemore) (07/26/90)
In article <1990Jul24.153837.4648@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >In article <1990Jul17.123023.11819@sco.COM> jim@iggy.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: > >>Actually, for the real user, he/she never knows that they system has been >>serialized,... >How does this affect the ability to move the system & applications to >another machine transparently? ... Hey! Nothing is affected or interfered with--you can backup to tape, restore, run multiple copies with the same serial #, or whatever-- there is no daemon to check licenses, and you are still "on your honor" to respect the license. -- Ed Whittemore uunet!maxed!ed ed@maxed.amg.com American Micro Group, Inc. 201 944 3293