ISC 386/ix v2.2

[Bill Kennedy]

:jackv at turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel) writes:
#tanner at cdis-1.compu.com (Dr. T. Andrews) writes:
: 
:[ .... discussion on the use of serial/activation key deleted...]
:
#>I should be pleased to hear from any vendors who might justify this
#>practice which, while failing to thwart illegitimate use, hurts the
#>legitimate users.
:
:Hear,hear! I am really perplexed on what ISC thinks this move is going to
:do for them. What they say, and I quote from the release notes..."Copy
:protection has been added for the base operating system and selected optional
:extensions in response to requests from INTERACTIVE UNIX System resellers."
:(pp.3-4). Now the question is can any of the resellers out there confirm this
:claim?? I find this a little hard to believe.

I'm a reseller and I certainly didn't ask for it.  Given the current flap
about tech support, this serial activation key, and other things flying
around about 2.2 makes me wonder if it isn't time to find another vendor.
One of my real peeves with SCO was having to have the damned activation
key around when I changed out a disk drive or needed to reinstall the
licensed system.  Murphy guarantees that if you leave the distribution
diskettes at the customer site, they will find a way to lose the activation
key.  Writing it on the diskettes is only a remedy if you do it *BEFORE*
you relinquish custody of the diskettes.  Ever try to get one of those
out of SCO if you lost it?  It's easier to get a personal financial
statement from Howard Hughes...  Will Interactive cooperate with the poor
devil who loses it and didn't write it down?  Will that poor devil have
to buy RESPONSE/ix to be able to ask for cooperation?  Get it?

Why would an Interactive Reseller want to make the installation more complex
or (potentially) less reliable?  It's certainly not an appropriate question
to ask for names, but how about the number of requests as a percentage of
total resellers?  No, I'm not asking that question either, but it would be
an interesting number, surely something > epsilon...

Now I want to pose a more (to me) interesting question.  I believe that Kodak's
acquisition of Interactive has been good for ISC and for their customers.  I'm
as quick as any to spotlight ISC's gaffes, but things are much improved since
Kodak got in the act.  Maybe that's a coincidence, but it doesn't matter, it's
much improved.  Kodak has a reputation and track record for not pissing off
their customers.  That seems to have not soaked down the corporate tree.  I'm
not referring to standard net.bitching and senseless.flaming, I'm talking
about making people mad at you.  This serial activation stuff makes me mad,
RESPONSE/ix makes me mad.  In fairness, however, Mike Alcorn posted the
RESPONSE/ix info and he signed it with his real identity.  That tells me
that he's listening and I applaud and appreciate that.  Further, he told us
what the policy is; we had been asking for that.  Credit where it's due, I
appreciate Mike's article.  It made me mad, but I appreciate his posting it
and signing it.  He took the time and trouble to post the policy that
someone else (probably) made, he gets thanks and no criticism from me and
IMHO shouldn't from you.  Nonetheless I'm feeling that the net.mood for
Interactive is mad.  That's a departure IMHO for a Kodak company.
-- 
Bill Kennedy  usenet      {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
              internet    bill at ssbn.WLK.COM   or attmail!ssbn!bill