On 2006-05-11, larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:>>>Even if the vendor remains in business, it should provide a 24 >>>x 7 service for any copy protection problems due to different >>>time zones >> >>They do. Though I think you mean "normal business hours" for >>any given > > Sure, right (to the "they do" comment). It took us a week of > discussions about versions, serial numbers, activation > numbers, installation codes, verification codes, code codes, > (...) to get our copy of Hitech PIC C reactivated after we > moved it from one engineer's machine to another. Two engineers > were idling for a week; that's $6,800. Where's my check from > Hitech?I'd have to agree with Lewin on this one. I've had experiences like that with almost every tool vendor that used some sort of node-locking or activation scheme. Another fun one is when you need a bug-fix so you have have to purchase an upgrade to the latest version and the vendor has no record of you purchasing the product, so they demand that you buy another full license. They claim they lost a lot of their customer records, so I'm just screwed. Nice. About 7 years ago I vowed never to use a dongle or node-locked tool if there was any possible alternative. Though I find open-source tools to be better supported and easier to use, I'm still willing to use use commercial tools (even ones with serial numbers and activation codes) as long as I'm free to move the product from one machine to another. People see themselves in others. IMO, a vendor thinks I'm out to screw them because they're out to screw me. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Let's send the at Russians defective visi.com lifestyle accessories!
AVR Compiler Recommendations
Started by ●May 9, 2006
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:>Hi David >Thanks for the email...... is there something you are not >telling us on this NG? :-) > >In message <IZ3P0K$81C834F55868E3D9064237B06D0B8DC8@terra.com.mx>, >david_brown <david_brown@terra.com.mx> writes >>Dear Friend, >> >>I am Mr.David Brown senior manager accounts/audit department, in >>Standard Trust bank Nigeria Plc. Mr. Mark Cin a national of your >>country, who was a consultant with Shell-development Company in >>Nigeria and a personal friend Died and left behind his deposit in >>this bank (STANDARD TRUST BANK NIGERIA PLC) valued $18,723,822.90. >>...<OT> Hey!! I thought I already had the exclusive rights to this deal. I want my ingots back!!! </OT>
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
In article <44634692$1@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown <david@westcontrol. removethisbit.com> writes>Chris Hills wrote: >> In article <j2q462lmkd0oj55jotbkvrossbf1dv18v4@4ax.com>, Paul Keinanen >> <keinanen@sci.fi> writes > >>> For these reasons, I try to avoid any products with dongles or other >>> awkward copy protection systems. >> >> The same applies to vehicle parts, computers, etc when working out in >> the middle of nowhere. >> > >Vehicle parts, computers, etc., are all commodity items that can be >easily purchased in most modern towns.You said in the middle of nowhere... now it is a modern town.>Replacement dongles for >specialist software is a completely different matter.A dongle can be with you in 48 hours usually if it is a modern town. But I have 30 days to deliver. You are changing the argument from Jungle to modern town. Besides your argument is wrong. MANY consumer parts and car parts can take weeks for spears to arrive..> >> BTW your GNU theory falls down as well. How do you reinstall the GNu >> compiler if the hard disk crashes? I can's see HP or Dell doing a 4 hour >> turnaround to the jungle. > >You can borrow or buy another computer - perhaps not in the middle of a >jungle, but not far off it. With a tools like winavr (or >customer-friendly commercial tools like ImageCraft), you are a download >away from being up and running again.Download from where? You mean a modern city with a broad band link You don't need a dongle for the 30/45 day eva, versions and a month is enough time to get a gongle anywhere on the planet. Or of course email node lock keys. Actually you can do that over the phone even a sat phone.>> >> I get the impression the open source community here KNOW the answer and >> will use any argument no matter how unlikely to fit their [ religious ] >> convictions about open source. It is the only thing that accounts for >> the sort of arguments you see here. >> > >You are the only one who has this impression, and I don't know where you >get it.Strangely two other people on different continents said the same thing to me today that the open source community is religious, blinkered and fanatical. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:>On 2006-05-11, larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Even if the vendor remains in business, it should provide a 24 >>>>x 7 service for any copy protection problems due to different >>>>time zones >>> >>>They do. Though I think you mean "normal business hours" for >>>any given >> >> Sure, right (to the "they do" comment). It took us a week of >> discussions about versions, serial numbers, activation >> numbers, installation codes, verification codes, code codes, >> (...) to get our copy of Hitech PIC C reactivated after we >> moved it from one engineer's machine to another. Two engineers >> were idling for a week; that's $6,800. Where's my check from >> Hitech? > >I'd have to agree with Lewin on this one. I've had experiences >like that with almost every tool vendor that used some sort of >node-locking or activation scheme.My own personal disaster story happened a few years/jobs ago when I was asked to reinstall & run a very expensive Unix memory verification tool (a la Purify) that was locked to either the hard disk or MAC address of the system to which it was originally licensed. (Can't remember which.) The company providing this tool had been bought several times, and the current IP owner had killed that product line, integrating the technology into other products. I was very lucky that in that I finally got it to work, but it took more than 1 and half month just to find who was the tool's owner plus two weeks until locating somebody in that organization that could provide a new installation key. If possible, I will avoid these schemes like the plague. If not possible, I would quarantine the plague inside a VMWare virtual machine, that can be ported to another system without outside assistance.
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
Chris Hills wrote:> Strangely two other people on different continents said the same thing > to me today that the open source community is religious, blinkered and > fanatical.You've seen all of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, I take it? Do you feel a kinship with Nigel Hawthorne? Remember that episode of Yes, Minister where the DAA is covering up some horrific systematic waste (I think the episode title was The Greasy Pole) and Hacker asks Humphrey how to respond to the accusations? Humphrey replies that they should simply use one of the five standard Civil Service responses, one of which is "There's a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything, but security forbids its disclosure". Deja vu.
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
Chris Hills wrote:> Hi David > > Thanks for the email...... is there something you are not telling us on > this NG? :-) > > > > In message <IZ3P0K$81C834F55868E3D9064237B06D0B8DC8@terra.com.mx>, > david_brown <david_brown@terra.com.mx> writes >> Dear Friend, >> >> I am Mr.David Brown senior manager accounts/audit department, in Standard Trust >> bank Nigeria Plc. Mr. Mark Cin<snip> Ah, you've caught me out. I also make tractors in my spare time. mvh., David Brown.
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
CBFalconer wrote:> larwe wrote: >> Chris Hills wrote: >> > ... snip ... >>> I get the impression the open source community here KNOW the >>> answer and will use any argument no matter how unlikely to fit >>> their [ religious ] >> ROFL. Like I said, things look different when you're sitting on >> the right hand of God. I work at a company with a market cap in >> the billions of dollars and [though not in my division] numerous >> important military projects. These issues are real for us. How >> big does a company have to be to fall outside your definition of >> lunatic fringe hobbyists, then? > > He has some peculiar ideas. For example, he responds to Nigerian > scam spam, and quotes it in its entirety, on a newsgroup. This is > evidence of something or other. >Chris certainly has some funny ideas, but the Nigerian 419 posting was a joke, since the scammer had such a nice name. mvh., David
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
Chris Hills wrote:> In article <1266cel3464nkc1@corp.supernews.com>, Meindert Sprang > <ms@NOJUNKcustomORSPAMware.nl> writes >> "Paul Keinanen" <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote in message >> news:rp966257ev6u4scbli1hc1jkm32e74ftaq@4ax.com... >>> If you don't have the source codes, how would you fix for instance >>> incompatibilities with future OS versions. >> By saving the OS version as well. >> >> I keep an old laptop alive with Windows 95, just to be able to run my Pascal >> MT+ compiler on a CP/M emulator (ZRUN) which needs an OS that supports FCB's >> instead of file handles. >> >> Meindert >> >> > The other problem is you can NOT recreate the old version of the GNU > compiler without the original source AND the original compiler that > compiled it, running on the same OS and hardware..... Having just the > sources is not enough. >I've heard your theory here before, and it is still rubbish. Properly written tools (such as gcc) can be compiled on any supported architecture (32-bit or 64-bit, big-endian or little-endian) and operating system, and will produce the same results from any of them, regardless of the compiler version used or its flags. People do this all the time - the tools are primarily distributed as source code! Being able to freely copy the binary to different machines is not better in any way (and of course, you are also free to copy the binaries of your open source tools, rendering your argument invalid even if there had been a factual basis). It is most certainly better than a locked binary that can't be moved at all, but it is not enough. I've seen software that failed to run on modern computers because they are too fast (such as old versions of Microchip's mpasm, which refused to run on computers faster than about 200 MHz until the binary was hacked and patched). Old DOS or 16-bit windows binaries cannot run on Win64, and will not run on other future windows versions - so your old binaries won't run on newer machines (unless, of course, you use open source software such as DosBox, FreeDOS, or Wine).> Having the binary is better. But then you can get that for all the > commercial compilers anyway. Besides they usually unprotected the old > versions when the supply them. >Commercial suppliers might on occasion provide you with an unlocked older version of their software if you can persuade them to - but the economics and practicality are very much against it.> Basically if comes down to religion and how you deal with your tools > suppliers. If you are hostile with them it is not surprising that the > don't fall over themselves to help. >I think a lot of us here have their war stories from battling protection schemes and unhelpful suppliers - I know I have. And I think most people here would at least start off polite and respectful when dealing with the suppliers - it's not unreasonable to get a little irritated when you find that your supplier is insisting you buy a full new license just because your dongle broke (or whatever your problem happens to be).
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
In article <446370c7@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown <david@westcontrol.re movethisbit.com> writes>CBFalconer wrote: >> larwe wrote: >>> Chris Hills wrote: >>> >> ... snip ... >>>> I get the impression the open source community here KNOW the >>>> answer and will use any argument no matter how unlikely to fit >>>> their [ religious ] >>> ROFL. Like I said, things look different when you're sitting on >>> the right hand of God. I work at a company with a market cap in >>> the billions of dollars and [though not in my division] numerous >>> important military projects. These issues are real for us. How >>> big does a company have to be to fall outside your definition of >>> lunatic fringe hobbyists, then? >> >> He has some peculiar ideas. For example, he responds to Nigerian >> scam spam, and quotes it in its entirety, on a newsgroup. This is >> evidence of something or other. >> > >Chris certainly has some funny ideas, but the Nigerian 419 posting was a >joke, since the scammer had such a nice name. > >mvh., > >DavidAlso I had not responded to it. I just hit the reply button to get the header to show it was from "David Brown" It just amused me that it came in to my emial whilst discussing with David on the NG. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●May 11, 20062006-05-11
Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:> The other problem is you can NOT recreate the old version of the GNU > compiler without the original source AND the original compiler that > compiled it, running on the same OS and hardware..... Having just the > sources is not enough.Um have you not heard of compiler convergence? The standard method of building GCC recompiled itself with itself during the build process. It doesn't matter what the original compiler was the result will always be the same. Incidently any commerical compiler worth its salt will be able to converge itself as well. The exceptions being compiler for some embedded architectures where it would simply be too slow.> Having the binary is better. But then you can get that for all the > commercial compilers anyway. Besides they usually unprotected the old > versions when the supply them.Having long expericence of such things most commerical companies can't even rebuild old versions of their products let along remove copy protection from them.> Basically if comes down to religion and how you deal with your tools > suppliers.No it doesn't. It comes down to requirements and the ability of the vendor to meet those requirements. If you choose open or closed tools to fulfill those requirements is another question. You can buy commerical tools with a 10 year support program and source escrow and you can buy commerical tools which the vendor won't be able to rebuild six months from now. You can also obtain open source tools which you will be able to rebuild 10 years from now and obtain open source tools which probably will be significant hassle to rebuild next year. -p -- Gotch, n. A corpulent beer-jug of some strong ware. Gotch, v. To surprise with a remark that negates or usurps a remark that has just been made. --------------------------------------------------------------------
