Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!rutgers!ub!canisius!pavlov From: pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Preventing date rollback Message-ID: <3133@canisius.UUCP> Date: 14 Jan 91 03:00:07 GMT References: <292@bria.AIX> <333@bria> Distribution: comp Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo N.Y. 14208 Lines: 61 [ I assume, given the newgroup that this was posted to, that we are not talking about MS DOS-based software packages ] In article <333@bria>, writes: > > That is because the user is most likely NOT interested in protecting the > interests of the vendor. > Most sys admins and/or the people responsible for choosing a particular package ARE very concerned with the vendor's interests: you don't want a package you bet your company's long-term health on to be "orphaned". >>We recently invoked the "roll back the clock" function to allow the continued ^^^^^^^^^ > >execution of one protected program because the update the vendor gave us to ^^^^^^^^^ > >restore functionality required us to install an OS software upgrade that we > >aren't ready to install... > > While unfortunate that your vendor wouldn't be able to help you without an OS > upgrade, that is sometimes the cost of improvement. ^^^^^^^^^^^ > Hunh ???? I think that you are trying too hard to prove that the "customer is always wrong". We, unfortunately, have had to play the clock game also - for software we pur- chased and pay support fees for - due to messed up "validation strings". Didn't do much for our transaction logging, inter-site communications, etc. > >Software protection schemes that are tied to system hardware numbers..... > > If you are doing something like swapping motherboards, then simply let the > software company know in advance what you are doing, and I'm sure they'll > accomodate you. If you want to take the attitude of "why should I have to > call someone else when I'm changing something on my machine", then you're > living in a vacuum, and your expectations will never be met. > I think that a vendor who truly believes this is guilty of living in a vacuum (or doesn't think too much of his software). A lot of us jump through hoops to try to keep our applications up as close to 100% of the time as possible: it's in our customer contracts/agreements/whatever. We DON'T KNOW "in advance that a cpu board will fail and if/when it does, what the replacement's number will be. > If the copy protection causes daily interference in one's life, then I > would say that the protection was a hassle, and dump the product. I've never seen/lived one that wasn't and a significant minority of them were destructive to our operation in one way or another. > > Gee, my view of the world is rather bleak, isn't it? :-) > -- > Michael Stefanik, Systems Engineer (JOAT), Briareus Corporation Is the lack of a spokesman disclaimer here significant ? pavlov@stewart.fstrf.org