copy protection, authorization

[Jon Gefaell]

In article <1990Jul13.211604.12457 at ico.isc.com> rcd at ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>I understand that the authorization-key tracking can be anything from a
>minor nuisance to a major problem, depending on circumstances.  I'm not
>going to enter the public fray on that one.  (Yes, of course I have
>opinions!  But I work for ISC; almost any opinion I'd express would be
>out of place here.)  I just want people to be discussing and making their
>decisions based on the authorization-keying, not on an incorrect assumption
>that it's copy-protected.
>-- 

Hmm, lemme see... If it _looks_ like a turd , it _smells_ like a turd,
it _feels_ like a turd, Well, let's just call it a turd then, shall we?

With all the frustrations of computer (Which I dearly love, of course) I 
tend to want to AVOID uneccessary frustration, even the low end 'minor
nuisances' seem too much, especialy when I have to PAY for them!

Of course you disclaimed participation in the relative merits of the scheme
you just wanted to clarify if the scheme was a turd or not. :)


I'm _very_ glad I'm an ESIX customer, many times over. Wonderful pricing
(Just got my $99 Rev D. upgrade, with many nice new features and improvments)
Nice and competent technical support staff who you can actually call! (and they
never seem to have a busy signal....) Hmm, lemme see what else? OH YEAH!...

No turds!

BTW, standard disclaimers, I have absolutely no relation to ESIX
   unstandard disclaimers, I usualy am not into toilet humor, 'scuse the
                           turd analogy, it's just what came to my fertile
                           imagination! :)
-- 
+----------- Domain? DOMAIN? We Don't Need No Steeeenkin' Domain! -----------+
| __/\                                                                       |
| \/~~                                                                       |
+-savant!jon at virginia.edu {...}!uunet!virginia!savant!jon jeg7e at virginia.edu-+