Re: removing authorization key, putting it back later

  • From: "John Heim" <jheim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:13:00 -0600

Dude... It's not about knowing the rules. Even if you know the rules, they're a pain. Why should I have to anticipate blowing out a CD-ROM drive? Why should I have to *know* that I have to anticipate blowing out a CD-ROM drive?
Maybe I want to swap out my CD-ROM drive every week. And my video card too. And I want to add RAM and then take it out. I have to re-auth each time? Why? I know *technically why. I mean why should that be required?
Get a donkle you say? Well, that alone is a pain. Now I have to carry a donkle around with me? Either that or I have to have several donkles, one for each computer I use? And I have to pay $45 for each one? I have to go through the red-tape to get my employer to buy a donkle?
look, *NOTHING* else is like this. Windows, magma, symantec anti-virus, cisco vpn, textpad, ultraedit, winzip... Nothing else I own a license for is anything like this. People wouldn't put ut with it if it was like that. Nobody would buy ultraedit if you had to reauthorize every time you added RAM. Nobody would by winzip if you had to pay $45 for a donkle.
Alright, when my CD-ROM drive died, I swapped it out. What was I supposed to do? Admittedly, I had some vague hope that just swapping out the drive wouldn't require re-auth. Besides, I had the 20 digit key. Is that such a crime? Why does *that* make this whole fiasco my fault? It's absurd!
Look, I'm not an unsophisticated computer user. A little lazy maybe because I didn't read the fine print on the authorization. But I'm no different in that way than 99.999% of the people on this planet. Think about what you're saying... How many people do you think would expect to lose their authorization for a piece of software if they swapped out a defective CD-ROM drive? Come on! It's absurd!
I think it was reasonable for me to think the 7.1 authorization was like that of the 5.4. You can use the diskette 5 times. It doesn't matter what you do to your machine in the mean time. I expected it to work the same way with 7.1 except instead of a diskette, you had a record in a database on a machine at FS headquarters. 

From: "Rick Harmon" <rharmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: removing authorization key, putting it back later



I actually have done that.  But when my keys get down to one I know to call
FS.  if that is on the weekend then I wait till monday.  I understand his
gripe but still one needs to know the rules of the product they are using.

Rick


=======

Visit my webpage at www.blind-geek-zone.net

Here you will find Audio tutorials for popular programs, blindness related
web links, blind mailing list links and documents for various things.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Blake Sinnett" <frequency660@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: removing authorization key, putting it back later
I can see where he's coming from... I suppose if you want something without 
this problem, you'll have to get a dongle, for $45.


From: "John Heim" <jheim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: removing authorization key, putting it back later
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:28:08 -0600


----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Toews" <dogriver@xxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: removing authorization key, putting it back later



For one thing, it's not a problem. It's by design.


It's  a problem  for me! I don't care if it's by design.
My CD-ROM dies and instead of just being able to swap it out, I have to call FS and get reauthorized? That's bogus. Why would I care if it's a bug or by 
design


For a second thing,
if you're going to be using it, you'd darned well better read up on it.


Who says?

An authorization scheme that requires you to study it is itself a defect.
I'm a professional programmer. And I consider it a failure on my part every 
time I have to explain how to use one of my programs. Sometimes it's
impossible to have things simple enough that they need no explanation. But I 
haven't had to study the authorization scheme for any other software I've
ever licensed. I don't lose my Windows XP authorization when i swap out a
CD-ROM drive.


Third, whether you or anyone else thinks it's stupid is irrelevant, this
is the way it is. Ranting and stamping your foot isn't going to change
First of all, I'm not "ranting" nor am I "stamping my foot". I'm stating my 
opinion just as you are stating yours.
If you're questioning why I'm talking about it on this list, well, it came
up. Why are you talking about it?

But more importantly, this is how things get changed. They certainly won't
change if nobody complains. I told FS that I found their authorization
scheme unacceptable. I did them a favor in doing so.


--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list:
http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the 
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list:
http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the 
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list: http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com 
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. 
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 




--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list: 
http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to 
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw

If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the 
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the 
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. jfw
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2007