Very Computer

I'm afraid to ask, but what happens when one needs to change
a motherboard under OSE 5? Would s/he have to reinstall the
whole system from scratch? Why? Because every system has
a unique SCO System ID (check the bottom of your License Manager
window, you'll see what I mean), which will change when you replace
your motherboard. Detecting System ID change, license manager
won't let you use your system, mistakenly considering it to be
the case of software piracy. Am I wrong?

--
mikhail

Replacing the motherboard should not effect the system id - if you replace
the /root hard drive or low-level format the device, then you will generate
a new system id.

===============================================================================

Technical Support Engineer                                       (408) 425-7222
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.                                   (fax) 427-5443

|> I'm afraid to ask, but what happens when one needs to change
|> a motherboard under OSE 5? Would s/he have to reinstall the
|> whole system from scratch? Why? Because every system has
|> a unique SCO System ID (check the bottom of your License Manager
|> window, you'll see what I mean), which will change when you replace
|> your motherboard. Detecting System ID change, license manager
|> won't let you use your system, mistakenly considering it to be
|> the case of software piracy. Am I wrong?
|>
|> --
|> mikhail

--
===============================================================================

Technical Support Engineer                                       (408) 425-7222
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.                                   (fax) 427-5443

Quote:>Replacing the motherboard should not effect the system id - if you replace
>the /root hard drive or low-level format the device, then you will generate
>a new system id.

So, in other words, using a disaster recovery tool such as cactus
software's Lone Tar and creating emergency boot disks is useless,
because should your system fail and you need to recreate the root
filesystem, you're basically screwed?

MD
--
--   Who needs looks when you have taste?
--  
--   http://pstc3.pstc.brown.edu/roster/deignan

No, because the "SCO System ID" doesn't affect licensing, it affects
registration.  If you replace your root drive due to failure, your
system will complain about not being registered.  You'll have to contact
the SCO Registration Center to shut it up.  It will not, however, deny
service.  Licensing makes the software run; registration makes the
software sing happily to itself.

Quote:>Bela<

I conducted an experiment last night. Changed the motherboard
& RAM, leaving everything else in place. And guess what, after
bringing up the system, I got a message (right before a 'Control-D'
prompt), which stated that I don't have any valid license in my
system & suggested to enter a single user mode & run the license
manager. I decided to stop at this point & put my old motherboard
back, which appeased the built-in license cop instantaneously.
Comments?

--
mikhail

I find this very disturbing.  i am all for thwarting piracy BUT this
kind of thing starts to get ridiculous.  I haven't seen this on Unixware
2.01!  My feeling is this - the playing field (with Linux) is getting
more competitive.  Ie, I have seen (in place!) cheap/freebies like
Linux doing things that once were reserved for the SCO's.  And this
is rapidly getting more so.  I do not advocate that Linux could
replace SCO in mission critical high-load server roles!  OSE 5.0 is an
excellent product and serves its purpose VERY well.  But UnixWare 2.01
works pretty well too (at least much better than the previous release)
and is rapidly (IMHO) building its place in the market.  So, why
has SCO all of a sudden decided that they have to inconvenience us
to such a degree (like this case) that should one of the systems I
work on have a problem and require reloading and/or hardware replacement,
that I should have to further burden my already LIMITED time and
resources to reauthorize it with them AGAIN????!!!!  Is that the
way to encourage us to choose them as the field of choices grows
larger by the quarter????  Hell, look at Novell.  I have never
seen licensing like this.  Oh yeah, last time I checked they were
a BILLION dollar company.  Hmmm, SCO, not quite that, huh.  

I am not advocating Novell or MickySoft over SCO (or UNIX for
that matter).  I have and run OSE 5.0 and have been HIGHLY impressed
with it.  I think they did a fine piece of work!  I DO NOT like
this registration *and likewise am uncomfortable having to
"report" my actions (such as hardware changes).  While I am
sure the collection of such data has no alterior motives, it is
a bad precedence.  Maybe a SINGLE registration after purchase would
be fine.  Many people do that.  I do know of one company that
sells a highly vertical market piece of software that you have
to re-active/register when things change, but that software costs
$150,000.00!!!!  I just don't see it with an OS!  I am sorry,
it just seems to me that with the free unixes out there today (getting
more and more sophisticated by the day) that the world of unix
has changed FOREVER and that the outlandish pricing and licensing
schemes of the past are rapidly becoming BAD JUDGEMENT!!  Heck,
this way of thinking is what drove the push for free unix!

OK, I feel better now....  :-)  

Mark

Subsequently to my little experiment, I had a conversation
with SCO licensing guru, who suggested that this shouldn't
have happened &, according to his tech support sources, it may
be an indication of a bad motherboard. That might be so,
but the same motherboard had evidently held up under ODT 3.0.
Nevertheless, before we begin getting all worked up over
a possible case of SCO insensitivity, I think someone should
try replicating my experiment & let us know of the outcome.

--
mikhail

Because - it is.

Quote:

> It's ONE PHONE CALL (or fax or email).  You tell em you've had a hardware
> change, you get a new key, and your system stops complaining.  It's not
> like it stopped working or anything.

Its not for SCO to track my hardware changes.

Quote:

> H-P workstations have the $#%$ CD-ROM with the operating system matched
> to the hardware ID of the system it goes with.  Other vendors do things
> just as bad.

I dont own HP workstations.

Quote:

> SCO's policy prevents people from buying one copy and putting it on 500
> systems.

There are better ways.

Quote:

> It FORCES you to register your product.  This is NOT a bad thing.

Thats too much like big brother - I dont liked to be FORCED to do anything.

Quote:

> In the current world your vendor installs the product, you know nothing
> about it, and SCO has NO WAY of finding you when you NEED a bug fix or
> other major update.

Like they do now or or something. and I install my own things.

Quote:

> I'm an ISV and I'm installing a system that will enforce registration.
> It would be very rare that our system requires a second call/fax/email,
> but the purpose is the same.  To find out where the system is installed,
> and have information in my database if something goes wron and I have to
> notify the client.

> It will also allow me to do the things everyone WANTS with my product,
> like giving away demos, allowing FTP uploads, etc.

But how many WONT you sell because of that tactic?

================================================================================
Can someone please tell me why this is being thought of as such a pain
in the ASS?

It's ONE PHONE CALL (or fax or email).  You tell em you've had a hardware
change, you get a new key, and your system stops complaining.  It's not
like it stopped working or anything.

H-P workstations have the $#%$ CD-ROM with the operating system matched
to the hardware ID of the system it goes with.  Other vendors do things
just as bad.

SCO's policy prevents people from buying one copy and putting it on 500
systems.

It prevents people from buying 500 systems once, then just buying one
upgrade & installing it on all 500 systems.

It FORCES you to register your product.  This is NOT a bad thing.

In the current world your vendor installs the product, you know nothing
about it, and SCO has NO WAY of finding you when you NEED a bug fix or
other major update.

I'm an ISV and I'm installing a system that will enforce registration.
It would be very rare that our system requires a second call/fax/email,
but the purpose is the same.  To find out where the system is installed,
and have information in my database if something goes wron and I have to
notify the client.

It will also allow me to do the things everyone WANTS with my product,
like giving away demos, allowing FTP uploads, etc.

I've got four SCO licenses so far and nothing has bitten me in the butt.
If I don't register the product and it complains, I KNOW I legally own
the product and I'm not mad at it.

What's the big problem here?

Tom
---
D. Thomas Podnar                Microlite Corporation
Sales:   (800) 992-2827         2315 Mill Street
Support: (412) 375-6711         Aliquippa, PA  15001-2228
Fax:     (412) 375-6908         Manufacturers of BackupEDGE

So, the bottom line is that you cannot do a full restore from a backup
set to a new hard disk because the original hard disk fails (the most
likely thing you would want to do a full restore) and have the system
run and behave exactly as before. To me, that is not an acceptable
situation, technically. Also, it is one more thing to go wrong and
it also sounds like an ideal candidate for a denial of service or
imposition of inconvenience attack.
Perhaps Bela would be kind enough to explain
how this System ID thing works so that we can judge the risk.

Also, I don't steal software and I am getting rather fed up
with being inconvenienced because of those who do. This is yet
another inconvenience that affects my legitimate use of a product.
I'm quite sure that "the bad guys" will soon find a way round this
protection, if one can call it that, anyway.

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Hardie                     Telephone: +44 17 12 19 59 96     |
| London,                                 Fax: +44 17 12 19 59 97     |

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

 > Can someone please tell me why this is being thought of as such a pain
 > in the ASS?
 Because - it is.

That kind of response is not very helpful. It doesn't tell us what's wrong
with the policy, other than that you don't care for it.

 > It's ONE PHONE CALL (or fax or email).  You tell em you've had a hardware
 > change, you get a new key, and your system stops complaining.  It's not
 > like it stopped working or anything.

 Its not for SCO to track my hardware changes.
Agreed.  But that's not the point.

 > H-P workstations have the $#%$ CD-ROM with the operating system matched
 > to the hardware ID of the system it goes with.  Other vendors do things
 > just as bad.

 I dont own HP workstations.
But if you needed the particular features of an HP workstation, you'd put
up with it.

 > SCO's policy prevents people from buying one copy and putting it on 500
 > systems.
 There are better ways.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR!!!  We're (at least I'm) waiting to here them.

 > It FORCES you to register your product.  This is NOT a bad thing.
 Thats too much like big brother - I dont liked to be FORCED to do anything.
When you buy a car you register it.  For exactly the same reasons, IMHO.
What's the difference?  GMC and Subaru have been able to notify me
about programs (spelled RECALLS) for my vehicles.

 > In the current world your vendor installs the product, you know nothing
 > about it, and SCO has NO WAY of finding you when you NEED a bug fix or
 > other major update.
 Like they do now or or something. and I install my own things.
They CAN'T find you now.  With the LM they have a chance.
What if there is a major flaw in OpenServer 5?  Can they ASSUME that
evey customer is savvy enough to check websco.sco.com for updates?

 > I'm an ISV and I'm installing a system that will enforce registration.
 > It would be very rare that our system requires a second call/fax/email,
 > but the purpose is the same.  To find out where the system is installed,
 > and have information in my database if something goes wron and I have to
 > notify the client.
 >
 > It will also allow me to do the things everyone WANTS with my product,
 > like giving away demos, allowing FTP uploads, etc.
 >

 But how many WONT you sell because of that tactic?
The end user has shown clearly that he/she wants to try before they
buy, with NO restrictions.  Our license manager will allow that.
I am a staunch opponent of copy protection, but I believe our license
manager will open up our product to thousands of potential new users,
with the potential downside that a few people will think that regisering
the product is a pain in the ASS "because it is".

That having been said, I'm really interested in hearing your opinions
of a better way of handling things.

Tom
---
D. Thomas Podnar                Microlite Corporation
Sales:   (800) 992-2827         2315 Mill Street
Support: (412) 375-6711         Aliquippa, PA  15001-2228
Fax:     (412) 375-6908         Manufacturers of BackupEDGE

That's deep and well articulated.

Quote:>> It's ONE PHONE CALL (or fax or email).  You tell em you've had a hardware
>> change, you get a new key, and your system stops complaining.  It's not
>> like it stopped working or anything.
>Its not for SCO to track my hardware changes.

They don't care about your hardware changes.

Quote:>> SCO's policy prevents people from buying one copy and putting it on 500
>> systems.
>There are better ways.

What would you suggest? Something constuctive please.

Quote:>> It FORCES you to register your product.  This is NOT a bad thing.
>Thats too much like big brother - I dont liked to be FORCED to do anything.

Lighten up. You are not being FORCED to do anything. If you choose not
to register there is no penalty - you just have to live with a message
reminding you that you should register.

Quote:>> In the current world your vendor installs the product, you know nothing
>> about it, and SCO has NO WAY of finding you when you NEED a bug fix or
>> other major update.
>Like they do now or or something. and I install my own things.

Most of our customers do not have internet access.

Quote:>> I'm an ISV and I'm installing a system that will enforce registration.
>> It would be very rare that our system requires a second call/fax/email,
>> but the purpose is the same.  To find out where the system is installed,
>> and have information in my database if something goes wron and I have to
>> notify the client.
>> It will also allow me to do the things everyone WANTS with my product,
>> like giving away demos, allowing FTP uploads, etc.
>But how many WONT you sell because of that tactic?

We have not had one complaint from a paying customer.  The only
complaint we might have is as a VAR, we give up our customer list. But
we could get around that by registering the software to us.

We have already had one case of an OpenServer 5.0 customer buying the
software, and then calling us 3 days later for trouble with tcp
communication.  Seems it wouldn't talk to another box also running
OpenServer 5.0 . Where did you get the second copy we asked?
Pregnant pause. We were just testing the communication they said.
The world is full of less than totally honest people and I don't blame
SCO for protecting their investment.
We do the registering of licences for most of our customers, and I
don't find it any great pain. Fill out the form , fax it in, and
tomorrow key in the data.
Danny Aldham --- Tech Support Manager
       CGS Inc.   Vancouver BC
Phone (604) 528-6000 Fax (604) 528-6090

Quote:>We have already had one case of an OpenServer 5.0 customer buying the
>software, and then calling us 3 days later for trouble with tcp
>communication.  Seems it wouldn't talk to another box also running
>OpenServer 5.0 . Where did you get the second copy we asked?
>Pregnant pause. We were just testing the communication they said.
>The world is full of less than totally honest people and I don't blame
>SCO for protecting their investment.

The problem with the scenario you outline is that SCO already had
"copy protection" built into their networking product. Pre-OSr5
users will recall seeing a daemon "cpd" start during tcp/ip startup.
(In fact, if I recall correctly OSr5 has a similar daemon, "sco_cpd").
Thus, the added "protection" from the new licensing arrangement
is irrelevant.

MD

--
--   Who needs looks when you have taste?
--  
--   http://pstc3.pstc.brown.edu/roster/deignan

Quote:> ==========================================================================
> Can someone please tell me why this is being thought of as such a pain
> in the ASS?
> It's ONE PHONE CALL (or fax or email).  You tell em you've had a hardware
> change, you get a new key, and your system stops complaining.  It's not
> like it stopped working or anything.
> It FORCES you to register your product.  This is NOT a bad thing.

Tom, I think registration (once) is a fine idea, and I don't worry about
SCO tracking me down, because I follow the rules.  I also intensely dislike
the idea of this registration scheme; dealing with SCO from Mexico has
generally been inconvenient and expensive, and being required to contact
them every time I do a reinstall sounds like... a pain in the ass. ;>  
I have enough to do without their incurring additional work and expense
on me because they don't trust me.

On the other hand, I understand their problem and don't have a better
answer than this scheme. ;>

Saludos--

Larry Miller
Administrador de Redes / Network Administrator
Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, La Paz, BCS Mexico

This is an important point.  Many of us in the field are used to being
able to cope with disastors at any time of the day or night
and resuscitate a system back to complete normalcy WITHOUT having to
wait for SCO.  I have been blocked in recovery procedures once in my
career by a similar such hair-brained scheme (it didn't occur to the
company that somebody might actually have to reinstall a system at 2
AM when their phone operators were home in bed), and I swore I'd never
again work with such a setup.  I'm not just grousing: this is strong
enough negative factor to make me hesitate in purchasing OSE 5, so it
is becoming other than a tecnical question and getting into the sales
area. I should hope that some of these comments are being discussed
beyond this newsgroup in the SCO halls, because in my opinion this
protection system merits serious reconsideration.

Regards--

Larry Miller
Administrador de Redes / Network Administrator
Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, La Paz, BCS Mexico