tanner@cdis-1.compu.com (Dr. T. Andrews) (06/30/90)
In article <1990Jun27.001120.305@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
) BTW - this is the same mechanism used by SCO on all of their products,
) although you only need 1 number to install interactive including the
) development system, while SCO requires one for each system subset.
Yes, SCO uses a serial number/activation key entry as part of their
install. For safety, I have the number marked on each disk, as well
as on the box. I don't know where the original slip of paper with
the numbers is, but I don't care.
The pernicious practice of requiring serial number/activation keys
actually accomplishes nothing: anyone that would install the disks
on two systems instead of one will not be deterred because he must
enter the number twice.
However, the practice is harmful to the legitimate users. When a
program is clobbered, or I decide at a later date to install a file
from the disks, I must again re-enter serial number and activiation
key, or things may not work. It helps to know the name of the
program which converts the files into a usable form, as well as
the arguments which it accepts.
I should be pleased to hear from any vendors who might justify this
practice which, while failing to thwart illegitimate use, hurts the
legitimate users.
--
uflorida!ki4pv!cdis-1!tanner {uunet dsinc}!cdin-1!cdis-1!tannerjackv@turnkey.tcc.com (Jack F. Vogel) (07/02/90)
In article <00001IO@cdis-1.compu.com> tanner@cdis-1.compu.com (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: [ .... discussion on the use of serial/activation key deleted...] >I should be pleased to hear from any vendors who might justify this >practice which, while failing to thwart illegitimate use, hurts the >legitimate users. Hear,hear! I am really perplexed on what ISC thinks this move is going to do for them. What they say, and I quote from the release notes..."Copy protection has been added for the base operating system and selected optional extensions in response to requests from INTERACTIVE UNIX System resellers." (pp.3-4). Now the question is can any of the resellers out there confirm this claim?? I find this a little hard to believe. Disclaimer: MHOs not those of my employer. -- Jack F. Vogel jackv@locus.com AIX370 Technical Support - or - Locus Computing Corp. jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (07/05/90)
:jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel) writes: #tanner@cdis-1.compu.com (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: : :[ .... discussion on the use of serial/activation key deleted...] : #>I should be pleased to hear from any vendors who might justify this #>practice which, while failing to thwart illegitimate use, hurts the #>legitimate users. : :Hear,hear! I am really perplexed on what ISC thinks this move is going to :do for them. What they say, and I quote from the release notes..."Copy :protection has been added for the base operating system and selected optional :extensions in response to requests from INTERACTIVE UNIX System resellers." :(pp.3-4). Now the question is can any of the resellers out there confirm this :claim?? I find this a little hard to believe. I'm a reseller and I certainly didn't ask for it. Given the current flap about tech support, this serial activation key, and other things flying around about 2.2 makes me wonder if it isn't time to find another vendor. One of my real peeves with SCO was having to have the damned activation key around when I changed out a disk drive or needed to reinstall the licensed system. Murphy guarantees that if you leave the distribution diskettes at the customer site, they will find a way to lose the activation key. Writing it on the diskettes is only a remedy if you do it *BEFORE* you relinquish custody of the diskettes. Ever try to get one of those out of SCO if you lost it? It's easier to get a personal financial statement from Howard Hughes... Will Interactive cooperate with the poor devil who loses it and didn't write it down? Will that poor devil have to buy RESPONSE/ix to be able to ask for cooperation? Get it? Why would an Interactive Reseller want to make the installation more complex or (potentially) less reliable? It's certainly not an appropriate question to ask for names, but how about the number of requests as a percentage of total resellers? No, I'm not asking that question either, but it would be an interesting number, surely something > epsilon... Now I want to pose a more (to me) interesting question. I believe that Kodak's acquisition of Interactive has been good for ISC and for their customers. I'm as quick as any to spotlight ISC's gaffes, but things are much improved since Kodak got in the act. Maybe that's a coincidence, but it doesn't matter, it's much improved. Kodak has a reputation and track record for not pissing off their customers. That seems to have not soaked down the corporate tree. I'm not referring to standard net.bitching and senseless.flaming, I'm talking about making people mad at you. This serial activation stuff makes me mad, RESPONSE/ix makes me mad. In fairness, however, Mike Alcorn posted the RESPONSE/ix info and he signed it with his real identity. That tells me that he's listening and I applaud and appreciate that. Further, he told us what the policy is; we had been asking for that. Credit where it's due, I appreciate Mike's article. It made me mad, but I appreciate his posting it and signing it. He took the time and trouble to post the policy that someone else (probably) made, he gets thanks and no criticism from me and IMHO shouldn't from you. Nonetheless I'm feeling that the net.mood for Interactive is mad. That's a departure IMHO for a Kodak company. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill