Copy Protection Idiocy
Jack Johnson
returned.
So, let me make sure I have this right: I can't report Delphi bugs without
paying for the privilege, but at least I can relax knowing that the next
version will cost more and be hard to make a backup copy of? It seems that
Borland is adopting Steve Ballmer's favorite acronym, BOGU* - but I'd like
to point out that at Microsoft, it means the COMPANY will take the pain to
get the business, not that the CUSTOMER must take the pain to get the
product.
*Bend Over, Grease Up
--
Jack Johnson
Cyberworlds Inc.
http://www.cyberworlds.com
608-362-0318
Marius BURZ
> returned.
Welcome back.
>
> So, let me make sure I have this right: I can't report Delphi bugs without
> paying for the privilege,
is this really true?
if so, than I think I'll change my mind about Borland.
bunch of stupid people or how to call them?
<g>
I mean how is possible to charge for and indication
of one of your errors until you don't want to have
any more people that will report this errors.
--
Marius BURZ
ColdFusion/Spectra Administrator+Developer
htPp://www.roibm.de
htPp://www.craft.de
htPp://www.craft-ag.de
Jack Johnson
news:3A8EB983...@craft.de...
<SNIP>
> > So, let me make sure I have this right: I can't report Delphi bugs
without
> > paying for the privilege,
>
> is this really true?
>
What I was referring to is the long-awaited revamped bug-reporting system.
Unless the new system was put in place while I was gone last week, currently
only those with paid support contracts have an official channel for
reporting Delphi bugs to Borland.
Alessandro Federici
> paying for the privilege
I must have gotten this mixed up then.
I thought the betas given to the testers in order to find bugs were free and
those that will pay are those that wanna use the product... <G>
> It seems that Borland is adopting Steve Ballmer's favorite acronym,
BOGU* - but I'd like
> to point out that at Microsoft
IMHO the M$ has always been very intelligently helping the spread of illegal
copies of their product by not adding any restriction/copy protection. That
helped them very much gaining the coverage of the market they have now.
Having said this, I agree with the fact that copy protection is plain
useless. Hackers have already creacked that thing and the only one that will
end up hurt by this is Borland itself.
The only ones that will suffer from this copy protection will be regular
people that don't know how to hack or don't know where to find cracks. Those
people are usually some of those that actually push products around and buy
it anyways.
There are many situation in which a product gets bought AFTER it has been
used succesfully in production. It's a normal thing and happens frequently
(I am not staying is right or wrong here, is just what I saw around): you
use something, you make some money out of it and then you legalize
yourself... This is just how it goes, expecially outside the US were piracy
control is not as strong...
Alessandro Federici
Ah! Ok...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
> So, let me make sure I have this right: I can't report Delphi bugs without
> paying for the privilege,
Currently you can only report in the newsgroups. The new web based bug
report system will be better and more transparent. Please be patient a
little longer.
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://delphi-jedi.org
Jack Johnson
how backwards Borland's priorities strike me from my perspective as a
customer. They have no money or manpower to work on things that would make
my life as a developer better, but they do have money to buy technology
which does absolutely NOTHING for me as a customer except make it hard to
make a legal backup of software I've paid for.
--
Jack Johnson
Cyberworlds Inc.
http://www.cyberworlds.com
608-362-0318
"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" <rvel...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:96mvbm$5a...@bornews.inprise.com...
Rosimildo da Silva
>
> While I'm certainly not noted for my patience, this was really a comment on
> how backwards Borland's priorities strike me from my perspective as a
> customer. They have no money or manpower to work on things that would make
> my life as a developer better, but they do have money to buy technology
> which does absolutely NOTHING for me as a customer except make it hard to
> make a legal backup of software I've paid for.
>
Like get a bug tracker system working. They should pay some consultant
to get
Bugzilla installed, and working. Yes, these guys charge $300 per hour,
but they install it in a day.
--
Rosimildo da Silva rdas...@connectel.com
ConnectTel, Inc. Austin, TX -- USA
Phone : 512-338-1111 Fax : 512-918-0449
Company Page: http://www.connecttel.com
Home Page: http://members.nbci.com/rosimildo/
John Kaster (Borland)
> Like get a bug tracker system working. They should pay some consultant
> to get Bugzilla installed, and working.
Perhaps Bugzilla doesn't fit our needs.
--
John Kaster, Borland Developer Relations, http://community.borland.com
Cycling to cure cancer: http://homepages.borland.com/jkaster/tnt/
Order Kylix! http://www.borland.com/kylix * Got source?
http://codecentral.borland.com
Get the best Java IDE: http://www.borland.com/jbuilder
Alessandro Federici
ROTFLMAO^2
This is the funniest I read in a very long time!!!! ;-)
John Kaster (Borland)
> This is the funniest I read in a very long time!!!! ;-)
Bugzilla is an excellent bug tracking system, and one I have suggested
to community members over a year ago (along with several others) as a
good public bug tracking system to emulate.
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla
Alessandro Federici
I thought had something to do with Mozilla <G>
Kyle Cordes
> to get
> Bugzilla installed, and working. Yes, these guys charge $300 per hour,
> but they install it in a day.
fits their needs, or perhaps it's a case of "Not Invented Here".
--
[ Kyle Cordes * ky...@kylecordes.com * www.kylecordes.com ]
[ Training and Development Services: Java, Delphi, PHP, ]
[ ASP, ASTA, Web Applications, n-tier systems, etc. ]
[ Delphi developers: Visit the BDE Alternatives Guide ]
Kyle Cordes
> I thought had something to do with Mozilla <G>
It's one of several great things that spun off from the Mozilla a while
back... unfortunately while several useful things spun off early, an
actual browser has taken much longer!
Alessandro Federici
> actual browser has taken much longer!
I hope they other things are better than the browser...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
> They have no money or manpower to work on things that would make
> my life as a developer better
Who says so? They *are* working on it.
Jack Johnson
still widely known as The Black Hole of Borland. I'd be much happier if
they'd spend years working on (and never delivering) a proprietary copy
protection scheme, and just go buy a bug tracking tool!
I wish I didn't have to, but I suppose I should, point out that I love
Delphi and make money with it, which is why I have such strong feelings
about some of these issues. When MS pulls some bone-head move with their
programming tools I just laugh, because I really don't care. I do care what
happens with Delphi, so I take the time to make my (strongly held) views
known. Unfortunately, judging by results vs. my views (vis a vis Kylix
pricing, bug-tracking system availability, copy protection) I'm jinxing the
future of Delphi - maybe I should start requesting high prices, no bug
tracking, and uncrackable copy protection... :-/
--
Jack Johnson
Cyberworlds Inc.
http://www.cyberworlds.com
608-362-0318
"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" <rvel...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:96o2fo$4l...@bornews.inprise.com...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
> They've been working on it (the bug reporting facility) for years, but it's
> still widely known as The Black Hole of Borland.
They are completely redesigning it. And when it's ready, it won't be
known as a Black Hole anymore.
Jack Johnson
:^)
--
Jack Johnson
Cyberworlds Inc.
http://www.cyberworlds.com
608-362-0318
"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" <rvel...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:96ov6h$1i...@bornews.inprise.com...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
> That will be great, and I STILL won't like copy protection!
> :^)
Actually, I'm totally indifferent, since I have never had any software
with copy protection before (well, not since my Acorn BBC days - and
that were the days I wrote my own DFS, so that was no problem).
We'll see how it works, and how it is used, if at all.
Jack Johnson
<SNIP>
> Actually, I'm totally indifferent, since I have never had any software
> with copy protection before (well, not since my Acorn BBC days - and
> that were the days I wrote my own DFS, so that was no problem).
>
> We'll see how it works, and how it is used, if at all.
> --
> Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://delphi-jedi.org
I'm not at all indifferent, as you may have gathered. In the over 15 years
I've made my living in IT as a sysadmin, computer retailer, and consultant,
I've had nothing but grief from copy-protection schemes. I refuse to
recommend copy-protected software based on principle and experience. Will D6
be the product that is so wonderful it changes my mind and makes me believe
I should tolerate being treated as a (potential) thief for the privilege of
buying it? I'm harboring a secret hope that Borland won't copy-protect it
and put me to the test.
Joe C. Hecht
> > They've been working on it (the bug reporting facility) for years, but it's
> > still widely known as The Black Hole of Borland.
>"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" <rvel...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:96ov6h$1i...@bornews.inprise.com...
> They are completely redesigning it. And when it's ready, it won't be
> known as a Black Hole anymore.
You sounds so confident Rudy! I would suspect your working on the project?
Remember, no matter how good the software, it requires humans intervention
to work....
We can name it "The New Black Hole"<g>
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
> You sounds so confident Rudy! I would suspect your working on the project?
Me, a dentist? Nah. That would be too painful for all of you.
Rune Moberg
news:3a90081d$1_2@dnews...
> I'm not at all indifferent, as you may have gathered. In the over 15 years
> I've made my living in IT as a sysadmin, computer retailer, and
consultant,
> I've had nothing but grief from copy-protection schemes. I refuse to
FWIW: I agree.
I buy a lot of games (atleast I used to, this past year hasn't left much
time for games, the ones I do buy tend to stay on my shelf) and I've
observed a couple of things:
* SafeDisc didn't support Windows 2000 betas until the summer of '99
* SafeDisc is incompatible with a number of CD drives
* SafeDisc forces some drives to lower their speed (my 32X Plextor drives
becomes a 2X drive when encountering bad sectors -- this is actually a
feature since it helps the drive read faulty/damaged discs with added
accuracy!)
If SafeDisc continues their trend of not being future OS compatible (I have
several "old" games that won't install/run due to SafeDisc, one company even
went bankrupt shortly after release -- try getting support for "Discworld
Noir" -- ya can't) imagine what it'll be like if your favourite development
tool won't properly install on the beta OS you're trying out.
IMO copyprotection schemes aren't ready for the professional marketplace.
They're easy to crack (specially for people as knowledgable as developers
typically are - duh!), but they still present a major hassle for the honest
customers.
Two thumbs down. I wish Borland had waited for MS to make the move first.
(I'd be very surprised if Visual Studio got "protected")
--
Rune
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
> I'm not at all indifferent, as you may have gathered.
I can understand that, and from what I have read, it is in the simples
case a nuisance, and in the worst case a huge problem. I just haven't had
any experience with it myself. None of my software has ever been
protected that way.
John Elrick
news:96mnvo$cd...@bornews.inprise.com...
> > So, let me make sure I have this right: I can't report Delphi bugs
without
> IMHO the M$ has always been very intelligently helping the spread of
illegal
> copies of their product by not adding any restriction/copy protection.
That
> helped them very much gaining the coverage of the market they have now.
They tried copy protection back in the mid 80's and dropped it. It got
cracked too easily and was burning money for no apparant gain. They found
that a combination of registration keys, public information programs, and
visible enforcement were just as successful in detering casual copiers than
any cp scheme ever devised. They were also cheaper, copy protection
involves very expensive bypassing of standard o/s systems - very difficult
to develop and all but impossible to debug. Since crackers have access to
the same tools as the copy protection developers, code that can be easily
debugged can also be more easily cracked :(
True pirating (illegal copying with the intent of making a profit) can only
be fought with legal enforcement. It's way cheaper to crack a protection
scheme than to invest in R&D.
To the best of my knowledge (in the US), the only consumer based product
that is still copy protected is games. They are also (still) the most
heavily pirated and illegally copied - demonstrating that at best, copy
protection will only buy you enough time to let you get the next game out.
John Elrick
John Elrick
news:96qsmu$56...@bornews.inprise.com...
SNIP
> IMO copyprotection schemes aren't ready for the professional marketplace.
> They're easy to crack (specially for people as knowledgable as developers
> typically are - duh!), but they still present a major hassle for the
honest
> customers.
I concur with all your statements except this one. Copy protection is sold
as a "software lock". As a means to prevent software thieves. In this
sense, copy protection cannot work. Period. In the end, there must be one
critical JZ or JNZ command that either starts the program or kills it.
A physical lock mechanism has many wards that must be precisely aligned, and
is often designed that adjusting them improperly can "lock" the mechanism
such that future efforts to work it fail. There is no physical way to
implement this safeguard into software - by definition.
A cracker has no penalty for failure or for being delayed (the place where
all analogies to physical locking mechanisms completely falls apart - all a
physical lock ever has to do is buy time), so he can literally spend weeks
looking for that key section of code to bypass, the only loss being his
time.
If copy protection could act as a physical lock does, buy time to make the
thief nervous and make them pass for an easier target, it could be argued
that it could serve as a "software lock". It cannot. Therefore it is as
ready for the professional marketplace as it ever will be. No more
effective than a registration key - and much more expensive to develop and
much riskier to an end user's system.
Copy protection is a false hope to securing revenues. It distracts the
organization and forces the focusing of resources disproportionate to the
results acheived. It is long past time to bury this worthless idea and
start looking for a better solution to casual copying and piracy.
IMO
John Elrick
William Meyer
news:3a912cf5_2@dnews...
>
> Copy protection is a false hope to securing revenues. It distracts the
> organization and forces the focusing of resources disproportionate to the
> results acheived. It is long past time to bury this worthless idea and
> start looking for a better solution to casual copying and piracy.
I agree completely. It seems often to be clutched at through the misguided
notion that poor sales are the consequence of piracy, rather than the
consequence of marketing failure.
Bill
Iman L Crawford
<96nn56$5t...@bornews.inprise.com>:
>> unfortunately while several useful things spun off early, an
>> actual browser has taken much longer!
>
>I hope they other things are better than the browser...
Don't equate Mozilla with Netscape. Netscape last release
took a not ready Mozilla and released on the public as
buggy software.
Iman