1. Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
You are absolutely correct Mr/Ms/Mrs Gottwald
I never think that far in advance.
I fell that my project could possibly put people out of work
Companies, Salesmen, Programmers, etc, etc...
I dont like to see my fellow man do without, do you?
I have to charge something and allowing prospective users the right
to indulge in an all out fully functional program for a period of time
is not unreasonable.
Yes, I have had time limited software on my machine.
Several of the top 3D graphics packages use this method.
I also use theGIMP and it's completely free. So, where does one
draw the line? is it at starvation? What is everyones observation
on that? I program for fun and have'nt made a dime and dont intend to
in the very near future but, there is that certain circumstance isnt there?
Another thing, I'm not wasting my time to line the golden pockets
of Mr.Gates he's already got his share. I write the programs on Windows
/Dos because Linux isn't main stream YET.
euman at bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Gottwald, IT-IS T500, Fa. Compaq, DA <T.Gottwald at DEUTSCHEPOST.DE>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 1:18 AM
Subject: Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
> Hi Euman,
>
> the best protection to prevent your program from beeing used by other
people
> is doing just all these things you write below.
>
> Some people think "women are more attractive if they are not easy to
crack"
> but even if it would be the case, thats definitely not true for Software
.
>
> So increase the value of your Programms with nice graphics, an intelligent
> bug-free user-interface and don't waste your time in protection-schemes.
>
> Technically there are sooo many ways to implement and to overcome
> a time-limit protection, but besides that I think most people avoid it
> by simply keeping distance from these programms .
>
> One more thing to think about. WHY is Microsoft-Ofice the most used office
> in all major companies ? Here is my answer: Because its ALSO the most
often
> private-free-used-and-widely-spread office program far and wide.
> So the "bosses" say "we take the expensive microsoft product because
> we already know it AND OUR employees also already KNOW it."
>
> And why does everyone use Windows ? Isn't often enough the reason that
> the neighbour has also Windows and can give a "starting collection" of
software ?
> So everyone has it and everyone wants it. And Microsoft earns good
money - or not ?
>
> Many popular Software made their founders rich simply by getting spread
widely
> especially if its for free.
>
> Take another example: WinZIP ... Zonealarm ....
>
> --Theo Gottwald
>
> PS: Do you use time-limited programms ?
> ************************************************************************
> Take a look out of my window. NO TIME-LIMIT !!!
> http://www.theogott.de/Pan_0.htm
>
> ************************************************************************
>
> Hello
>
> If I want to inforce a time limit on my software and keep the program safe
from Re-Installation, what would be the best way?
>
> i.e:
>
> * encrypt a file with time date information and hide it in the Windows dir
> or anywhere that my program can find it later.
>
> * store the info in the Windows Registry (this could be accessed and
deleted).
> if the info weren't encrypted and hidden in a registry key not haveing
my
> software name attached to it.
>
> I want to find the best solution so I ask all for input.
>
> Another ? from
> euman at bellsouth.net
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
********
> http://www.theogott.de
>
>
2. Re: Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
- Posted by simulat <simulat at INTERGATE.CA>
Dec 12, 2000
-
Last edited Dec 13, 2000
Euman said:
> You are absolutely correct Mr/Ms/Mrs Gottwald
Theo is a masculine name. And it's true - I've seen his picture.
(ummm . . .pictures never lie do they? ( )
Bye
Martin
3. Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
------_=_NextPart_000_01C064CC.8DE38CA0
charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Euman,
the best protection to prevent your program from beeing used by other people
is doing just all these things you write below.
Some people think "women are more attractive if they are not easy to crack"
but even if it would be the case, thats definitely not true for Software .
So increase the value of your Programms with nice graphics, an intelligent
bug-free user-interface and don't waste your time in protection-schemes.
Technically there are sooo many ways to implement and to overcome
a time-limit protection, but besides that I think most people avoid it
by simply keeping distance from these programms .
One more thing to think about. WHY is Microsoft-Ofice the most used office
in all major companies ? Here is my answer: Because its ALSO the most often
private-free-used-and-widely-spread office program far and wide.
So the "bosses" say "we take the expensive microsoft product because
we already know it AND OUR employees also already KNOW it."
And why does everyone use Windows ? Isn't often enough the reason that
the neighbour has also Windows and can give a "starting collection" of software
?
So everyone has it and everyone wants it. And Microsoft earns good money - or
not ?
Many popular Software made their founders rich simply by getting spread widely
especially if its for free.
Take another example: WinZIP ... Zonealarm ....
--Theo Gottwald
PS: Do you use time-limited programms ?
************************************************************************
Take a look out of my window. NO TIME-LIMIT !!!
http://www.theogott.de/Pan_0.htm
************************************************************************
Hello
If I want to inforce a time limit on my software and keep the program safe from
Re-Installation, what would be the best way?
i.e:
* encrypt a file with time date information and hide it in the Windows dir
or anywhere that my program can find it later.
* store the info in the Windows Registry (this could be accessed and deleted).
if the info weren't encrypted and hidden in a registry key not haveing my
software name attached to it.
I want to find the best solution so I ask all for input.
Another ? from
euman at bellsouth.net
************************************************************************************
http://www.theogott.de
------_=_NextPart_000_01C064CC.8DE38CA0
name="Gottwald, IT-IS T500, Fa. Compaq, DA.vcf"
4. Re: Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
- Posted by Ray & Debbie Smith <smithr at IX.NET.AU>
Dec 13, 2000
-
Last edited Dec 14, 2000
Hi,
----- Original Message -----
From: Euman <euman at BELLSOUTH.NET>
> Another thing, I'm not wasting my time to line the golden pockets
> of Mr.Gates he's already got his share. I write the programs on Windows
> /Dos because Linux isn't main stream YET.
It doesn't matter if Bill is the richest man in the world it doesn't give
you or anyone else the right to pirate software just because a free
alternative isn't what you want.
A view about getting paid for your work that hasn't been mentioned yet
is to give your software away for free and charge for support.
This is becoming very popular with a lot of the larger GNU applications.
It makes allot of sense, since it's difficult to get money out of the home
user
because of piracy and the large number of other free applications around.
Business users seem (to me) to be the best target if your interested in
making money writing software. Giving it away for free is a good way to
get your foot in the door and as the user(s) begin to rely on your
product(s)
more and would like changes/upgrades/conversions etc you can then start
charging them for it.
I believe it's more important to have 1,000 users than $10,000 in the bank.
It's a great selling point to say you have a large user base. It would also
prove that your product can "do the job" and is stable. Once you can prove
these things and have a large user base I think your in a good position to
launch a business.
I'm not saying this is the only way ... but it seems like a good alternative
for
small home based developers.
just my 2 cents
Ray Smith
5. Re: Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
I feel moved to comment on a couple of points stated by Theo Gottwald:
>And why does everyone use Windows ?
>Isn't often enough the reason that the neighbour has also Windows and can
>give a "starting collection" of software ?
Why? Because marketing and image and bells and whistles are more attactive
than reliability, to most people. Same reason "good-looking and glamorous"
people have more sex (or offers of it) than the ones who know how to (and
maybe even enjoy) run businesses, care for homes and children, balance
checkbooks, and repair their own appliances or automobiles. Or the ones who
know how to read, write, and think, for that matter.
I would like Windows *if only and only if* it - and associated programs like
Internet Explorer - didn't crash frequently, exhibit bizarre behavior
frequently, allow naive users to innocently do so many self-damaging things,
etc. I get tired of complaining. No one cares to listen, esp. not Gates and
company. Wonder who reads e-mail sent to billg at microsoft.com?
An interesting twist on your suggested reason for using Windows is the
reason I continue to use it: Most other computer users do, there's more
software available for Windows than for Linux, Mac OS, etc., I'm familiar
with it and know how to use it (to a certain extent), like that and more of
the same. There's a lot to be said for critical mass.
>Many popular Software made their founders rich simply by getting spread
>widely especially if its for free.
I think you have to give most people (or at least, a great many people) some
motivation other than a tiny nag in their conscience to fork over money.
"Studies indicate" that the number of people who actually have consciences
is dwindling steadily. Just giving away the bank never made anyone rich;
rather, it's a sure way to waste your valuable time and resources.
If anyone has some free software, and it's decent (an exceedingly rare
combination, free and decent, only slightly more rare than non-free and
decent), please send it to me.
Windows and Office are never really (intentionally on the part of Microsfot,
anyway) "for free." Their cost is disguised and they are made to appear as
"free" by being included in package deals. Microsoft has made mutually
beneficial arrangements with other companies in the computer industry, that
reduce the genuine, effective choice of consumers by "automagically" putting
Windows on your desktop when you buy a PC, etc. It frightens and disgusts me
to think of the millions of people out there who have no experience of
computers whatsoever, beyond and except for the Windows experience.
Once again, there's a lot to be said for critical mass. So do whatever it
takes to achieve it, as long as you can avoid going broke, or getting put in
jail or shut down by the government (or your competitors) in the process.
But all this is kind of off-topic, so maybe best if you just view it as
"venting," and don't reply to it (much).
Perhaps cynically,
George
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
6. Re: Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
Responding to Euman's response to Theo:
You never know what topic will get someone's juices flowing. Maybe it's just
those two cups of coffee already before 6 AM. Anyway,...
>I fell that my project could possibly put people out of work
Companies, Salesmen, Programmers, etc, etc... I dont like to see my fellow
man do without, do you?
I don't think you should sweat it, Euman. Any change that can lay a
reasonable claim to being progress will harm someone somewhere, at least
temporarily. The good news is that individuals and society are usually
pretty resilient. At the same time, if the potential benefits of a product
or technology are greater than the potential harm, might it not be
reprehensible to withhold or delay those benefits?
I've been thinking about the same issues that you are contemplating. I am
not sure, but I can almost see justification for three different
incarnations of a good software package: 1. A free version that is more than
a demo, in that it actually provides measurable benefits to the user, and
will do so indefinitely. 2. A paid-for version that provides a strong suite
of functionality for the casual user, home user, or hobbyist. 3. A more
pricey "pro" version for the power user, such as someone who would use the
software in connection with earning their living or doing some project for
profit or other considerable, measurable benefit.
The free version would get the product name, and your company's name, in
front of a large number of people, helping to develop critical mass. You
would earn money directly from the percentage of those users who would want
and need the additional functionality offered by the upgrades-for-money.
I agree with Theo, that time-limited software just tends to irritate people.
My experience with this kind of software is that I typically don't have time
in 30 days (or whatever) to determine by "trial use" whether I want the
program enough to pay for it. When the program, or most of its
functionality, shuts down abruptly with me in an unsure state, the pendulum
swings immediately to "no, I don't really need it enough to pay for it," and
it gets summarily uninstalled. On the other hand, I can tolerate "nag-ware"
that urges me to register and complains if I don't do so farily promptly.
IMO your first priority should be to create an extremely reliable and usable
program. Lacking that, all other considerations are basically meaningless.
>Linux isn't main stream YET.
And it won't ever be, unless it can achieve critical mass, which entails
having a GUI with bells and whistles comparable to Windows, and a comparable
amount of "sexy" software written for it. By writing for Windows rather than
Linux, you're supporting the former and helping to undermine the chances for
real success of the latter. Not that I suggest you abandon programming for
Windows, but if you're a strong Linux fan, why not put some (more) effort
into making it better so that more people will join the Linux camp?
Interesting topic, no?
George
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
7. Re: Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
Ray Smith wrote:
>A view about getting paid for your work that hasn't been mentioned yet is
>to give your software away for free and charge for support.
I dislike this idea as much as I dislike "extended warranties." I have just
chosen a product because the sales person and other factors have managed to
convince me it's sufficiently ideal for my needs, and for me that includes,
very significantly, that it's an extremely reliable product, and overall
easy to use. Then they turn around and try to sell me 'insurance' JUST IN
CASE they lied to me, or my judgment is impaired, or a cosmic ray happens to
twiddle a bit, or whatever. I tend to abhor the whole concept.
My aim is to write (and consume) software that does not need support.
Period. I realize this is an unrealizeable ideal, but ^@#%$*& everyone
should shoot for it. Charging for support runs counter to this philosophy.
It implies the assumption that consumers will want and need the software's
functionality so much that they will be willing to put up with frequent
crashes, "featuritis," an inordinately steep learning curve, insane
behavior, and all the other things that create a need for support. (This is
apparently the Microsoft philosophy, and unfortunately when smaller
companies see MS getting away with it, even thriving on it or in spite of
it, they are prone to play copycat.) The world needs less of that, not more!
I agree with most of the rest of Ray's comments.
My 2 cents' worth also,
George
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
8. Re: Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:46:30 -0000, George Henry wrote:
>I would like Windows *if only and only if* it - and associated programs
>like Internet Explorer - didn't crash frequently, exhibit bizarre behavior
>frequently,
What are you running? Windows 3.x? I've been using Windows 9x for years,
with whatever IE is most current, without any problems and I'm not doing
anything special. Just install and run. It is a very rare occurance that
*any* program crashes on my computer (or crashes the OS for that matter).
So are your problems Microsoft's fault or your own (or your hardware
manufacturer or their drivers? or third party software? I remember the
days when Netscape screwed up my system but I didn't bash them for it, I
just used a better browser). Why are so many people so quick to blame MS?
I think they do one hell of a job considering how much hardware is
supported "in-the-box".
>allow naive users to innocently do so many self-damaging things,
>etc.
What OS *doesn't* allow naive users to innocently do so many self-damaging
things? Give me *any* OS and I can find an "innocent" way to break it.
>I get tired of complaining. No one cares to listen, esp. not Gates and
>company. Wonder who reads e-mail sent to billg at microsoft.com?
No, I'm sure Bill doesn't do tech support. Bill's job is to help drive
MS's future, not to reply to stupid "MS sucks becuase I screwed up my
computer that's running your OS" mail.
Sorry for being off-topic but I get tired of MS-bashers...
-- Brian
9. Re: Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
Windows 95 and/or 98 - Internet Explorer crashes every [expletive deleted]
time I get online, at least once. (Ironically, one of the most crash-prone
Websites is HoTMaiL, which is also a Microsoft product!)
Most of the programs I like (because they, in and of themselves, appear to
be intelligently conceived and implemented) crash occasionally in weird ways
that I am prone to blame on Windows.
I have ruined two expensive Hewlett Packard computers (supposedly one of the
best mgfrs) running Windows 95/98.
Aha! they say, he admits HE ruined the computers, not Windows! Well, as a
programmer and extreme "power user", I submit that I am only asking Windows
to do what it is advertised as being more than able to do, good at doing;
and if I do cause problems due to ignorance, would a REAL operating system
let me totally screw things up and not be able to fix them with a reasonable
amount of effort, without calling in expensive "experts"? (Tell me, Linux
fans? I wish we had some Mac OS people in this group, too.)
"Just install and run." Yes, that's what I want, too. Not "just install and
crash."
Brian, I respect your opinion, and maybe I expect too much. Then again, if
more people had higher expectations (and demands), maybe the overall quality
of software would improve.
George
----Original Message Follows----
From: Brian Broker <bkb at CNW.COM>
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:46:30 -0000, George Henry wrote:
>I would like Windows *if only and only if* it - and associated programs
>like Internet Explorer - didn't crash frequently, exhibit bizarre behavior
frequently,
What are you running? Windows 3.x? I've been using Windows 9x for years,
with whatever IE is most current, without any problems and I'm not doing
anything special. Just install and run. It is a very rare occurance that
*any* program crashes on my computer (or crashes the OS for that matter).
So are your problems Microsoft's fault or your own (or your hardware
manufacturer or their drivers? or third party software? I remember the
days when Netscape screwed up my system but I didn't bash them for it, I
just used a better browser). Why are so many people so quick to blame MS?
I think they do one hell of a job considering how much hardware is
supported "in-the-box".
>allow naive users to innocently do so many self-damaging things,
>etc.
What OS *doesn't* allow naive users to innocently do so many self-damaging
things? Give me *any* OS and I can find an "innocent" way to break it.
>I get tired of complaining. No one cares to listen, esp. not Gates and
>company. Wonder who reads e-mail sent to billg at microsoft.com?
No, I'm sure Bill doesn't do tech support. Bill's job is to help drive
MS's future, not to reply to stupid "MS sucks becuase I screwed up my
computer that's running your OS" mail.
Sorry for being off-topic but I get tired of MS-bashers...
-- Brian
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
10. Re: Re-Install? Protection-Schemes
--- George Henry <ghenryca at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> I have ruined two expensive Hewlett Packard
> computers (supposedly one of the
> best mgfrs) running Windows 95/98.
Please don't tell me you threw these computers away
just because your OS install was corrupted !
.
BTW... I have an HP (one of the cheap pavillions) and
I can't turn it off or the motherboard won't power up
again until it's good and ready. I figure You can
crash any PC running Linux with GNome or Windows 98
because GUI software lends to the Exponential use of
Resources and complexity. The Reason Linux has
developed a reputation for low downtime is because
application services are run from a plain command
shell;
Excessive crashing in Windows usually happens to
people who install too many fonts and widgets and
desktop gimmicks.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
