Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:295 comp.sys.ibm.pc:15800
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!ames!necntc!ima!think!ejb
From: ejb@think.COM (Erik Bailey)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Flushot PLUS TRASHES CMOS RAM
Message-ID: <21045@think.UUCP>
Date: 22 May 88 15:00:16 GMT
References: <82@psuhcx.psu.edu>
Sender: usenet@think.UUCP
Reply-To: ejb@godot.think.com.UUCP (Erik Bailey)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 115

Lineater, you'd better get your asbestos suit on pronto!

***FLAME ON***

In article <82@psuhcx.psu.edu> matt@psuhcx (Matt Cohen) writes:
>
>	
>I was testing FLUSHOT Plus to see if it was worth the
>$10.00 fee the Author, Ross Greenberg is charging.
>
> [...]
>
>	I had not read the documentation closely enough. It turns
>	out that you have to put a 'dummy' checksum in each line
>	like this:
>		C=filename[12345]
>	Where 12345 is the dummy number. When flushot is started,
>	it checksums the file, and reports the new number, which
>	you have to write down and type in FOR EACH FILE!

Would you rather it do it FOR YOU? Gee that would be swift, wouldn't it?
Nah, I don't think it would be TOO hard to extract the encodeing technique
out of the code and rechecksum a trashed file... Lissen Matt, that is in
there for YOUR protection!!! Is 5 minutes of entering a few numbers REALLY
so BAD???

>	I then rewrote the FLUSHOT.DAT file with only two programs,
>	command.com and a.bat checksummed. Flushot checked them on
>	startup, but did not perform as advertised when I ran A.BAT,
>	changed it, and ran it again.

Well, what type of character did you put after the checksum? Only a +
checksums a file when it is run.  A - or ,1 checksum it at FSP load time.

>	Flushot claims that it checksums files  whenever they are
>	loaded by MSDOS. I guess this does not apply to BATCH files.
> 	I was going to test checksumming of .EXE files, but FLUSHOT
>	trashed my CMOS ram.	
>	
>FLUSHOT PROTECTS CMOS RAM ?

Yes, it does. Since I don't have an AT, I've not used this feature.
It may be a bug.

>	I considered the possibility of Ross Greenberg enforcing
>	his $10.00 fee by putting counters into flushot (since I
>	had to restart it each time I changed anything in the
>	FLUSHOT.DAT file and did this a number of times)
>	and put the idea aside. (That was a pretty virulent dissertation 
>	in the manual about *worms*, maybe he thinks that people
>	who don't buy his software are *worms*?!? :-)
> 	What I think Ross will accomplish by these threats, rewards,
>	challenges is ENCOURAGE scores of copycats to write viruses
>	to beat flushot (which is buggy).

Well, I take offense to this. Why? I'm a close personal friend of Ross,
and a major beta-tester for his software (INCLUDING fsp). Look. Ross
didn't HAVE to write that program. In fact, way back on FLUSHOT v1.0, he
just wrote it for the heck of it. He had no idea it would turn into
practically a full-time job. If you put that much effort in, I'd suspect
that you'd expect some money in return. BTW -- a *LOT* of people have
registered FSP. BTW#2 -- there is NOT a counter in the code.

>	My conclusion is that FLUSHOT Plus does not perform as
>	advertised (in my case, anyway) and I would not use it
>	or even trust it with my data. 
>	The checksum protection is quite limited in number of
>	files, and the
>	method of entering the checksum is quite painful.

Awwww.... Can't read a number and type it in? Looks like you have a
limited mental capacity.

>
>	The bugs in the program might be excusable if  
>	the program was public domain or shareware in the
>	sense that you pay for it only if you think it is 
>	valuable (not if you use it, since technically, I
>	owe Ross Greenberg $10 since I used it) .

Sorry, that's not shareware anymore. Look at 90% of shareware code. They
say, basically, that you are entitled to use the program for a small period
of time (for example TAPCIS says 21 days, and yes, I've registered mine),
and if you use it beyond that, you are *REQUIRED* (emphasis on that word)
to register.

>	I think that it tries to do too much, and ends up doing 
>	too little, even the wrong thing altogether. This shows
>	poor design and testing practice.

Well, don't use it.

>	When I support a shareware program, I am not paying the
>	author for his time, I am paying for a finished product.
>	And a finished product, FLUSHOT PLUS is not !

That's what new versions are for. v1.3 will be coming out very soon
(probably this week) which will, among other fixes, fix a bug in the
X= handling of 1.2... I'm SSSOOOOO sorry you object to bugs. Hope you
never bought Lotus 1-2-3...

>	The above is my opinion, and no-one is liable for it but
>	myself. I reserve the right to deny everything.

Good. Deny it then.

>			Matt Cohen (matt@psuhcx)

***FLAME OFF***

I am, by the way, forwarding your original letter to Ross. --Erik
Erik Bailey     | CompuServe | 7 Oak Knoll         | (ARPA/USENET courtesy of
ihnp4!think!ejb |  PCMagNet  | Arlington, MA 02174 | Thinking Machines Corp.,
ejb@think.com   | 72261,3275 | (617) 643-0732      | First St, Cambridge, MA)
do headache -> take 1 aspirin od "This terminates one way or another" -Dijkstra