Preventing date rollback

[mike at bria.UUCP]

In article <3133 at canisius.UUCP> canisius.UUCP!pavlov (Greg Pavlov) writes:
:In article <333 at 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".

No doubt that many of theses companies express their desire to "help" the
vendor by duplicating the software illegally ... :-|

:> 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.  

This is why grace periods are implemented in the software protection schema.

:> 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.

Generally speaking, I just find it hard to feel for the end user who complains
loudly because we made it a little tougher for him to rip us off ...
Well written copy protection is non-intrusive (unless you're busy trying
to violate the protection) and has grace recovery for emergency situations.
Now perhaps companies out there aren't do it "right", but that doesn't
invalidate the concept of protection itself.

And, as an aside, of course I only speak for myself, not my company or
anybody else out there.  This is a given ...
-- 
Michael Stefanik, Systems Engineer (JOAT), Briareus Corporation
UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
--
technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly
found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..."