Text 16961, 907 rader
Skriven 2007-02-27 18:32:48 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 16957 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Adobe 8 Activation nightmare
=========================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_053B_01C75A9D.AEB8F230
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't see average consumers misusing the term. I see strongly =
opinionated and technical folks like those that would have their own = blog or
would post to a public forum. This isn't a consumer topic = beyond that some
folks are trying to make it one. That isn't to say = there aren't real issues
with interoperability and longevity such as you = read about lately with
itunes. This is just a single application of = DRM. The same aspects that are
an issue for this application are not = issues for the application of DRM to
your medical records or sensitive = corporate documents.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:45e4e27a$1@w3.nls.net...
I don't disagree. The notable constant though is that people are=20
including DRM in their complaints just because they can. If DRM was as =
beneficial for consumers as the industry propagandists spout I highly=20
doubt you'd see this trend.
Rich wrote:
> It's not just DRM and this, it's DRM and anything people want to=20
> complain about that can be stretched to garner more support. =
Broadly I=20
> see it used for anything that restricts access, copying, or similar. =
I=20
> think people believe they will get more sympathy for their position =
from=20
> a certain audience if they apply the term DRM than if they are =
honest.
> =20
> Rich
> =20
>=20
> "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com
> <mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com>> wrote in message
> news:45e4b899@w3.nls.net...
> I understand the point you are making. Unfortunately, like it or =
not,
> DRM and Activation are starting to be used interchangeably in =
everyday
> use ( as in the Infoworld Gripeline blog )
>=20
>=20
> Rich wrote:
> > This is neither a content nor a service which is one =
reason I
> > questioned the use of DRM. I think the new subject is =
appropriate.
> >=20
> > Rich
> >=20
> >
> > "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com
> <mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com>
> > <mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com>> wrote in message
> > news:45e4b05e$1@w3.nls.net...
> > It's an inane activation scheme. From Microsoft's own
> definition one
> > could make the case that Adobe's activation is a content
> owner setting
> > the business rules of a file ( a program in this case ). =
Most
> would use
> > 'activation' for clarity in this context - so Subject =
changed
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#d
> >
> > digital rights management (DRM)
> >
> > Any technology used to protect the interests of owners of
> content and
> > services (such as copyright owners). Typically, =
authorized
> > recipients or
> > users must acquire a license in order to consume the =
protected
> > material=97files, music, movies=97according to the rights =
or
> business rules
> > set by the content owner.
> >
> >
> > Rich wrote:
> > > What does this have to do with DRM? Or do you use =
DRM for
> > everything
> > > from actual DRM to encrypted email to password =
protected ZIP
> > files to
> > > SSL/TLS?
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> > >
> > > "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com
> <mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com>
> > <mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com>
> > > <mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com>> wrote in =
message
> > > news:45e4792a$1@w3.nls.net...
> > > Adobe - If you use a disk defragger the activation =
doesn't
> > like it?
> > >
> > > =20
> > =20
> =
http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/02/acrobat_activat.ht=
ml
> > > when it comes to stupid IT designs as far as the
> activation
> > issues I
> > > encountered with Adobe. I upgraded from Acrobat =
7.0 to
> 8.0,
> > because the
> > > demos and features looked great. After installing =
it,
> I didn't
> > > really use it
> > > for a few months. Then I went to use it and it =
said it
> was not
> > > activated."
> > >
> > >
> > > When the reader went to the menu, he was puzzled =
to
> see both the
> > > "Activate'
> > > and "Deactivate' buttons turned off. "Seems stupid =
--
> > shouldn't one
> > > always
> > > be highlighted?" the reader wondered. "After =
calling in,
> > Adobe told
> > > me to
> > > run the repair function. I did, and it worked for =
one day,
> > and then
> > > it was
> > > deactivated again and both buttons were off again. =
I
> called again
> > > and waited
> > > on hold forever to be told to uninstall and =
reinstall.
> So I
> > > uninstalled and
> > > it deactivated. I went to reinstall and it said I =
did
> not have an
> > > original
> > > product to upgrade from. Wow, like I'm supposed to
> keep all
> > > hundred-plus key
> > > codes I've ever had from Adobe. So after about 3 =
more
> people
> > and a
> > > lot more
> > > time on the phone I got around the installation =
and
> activated
> > again
> > > with a
> > > temp key. Then within hours it deactivated again."
> > >
> > >
> > > The reader then entered a support nightmare from =
which
> he is
> > yet to
> > > awaken.
> > > For weeks on end, tech after tech would tell him =
to
> run the
> > repair
> > > function
> > > and reinstall. When that wouldn't work, the techs
> would begin
> > > speculating as
> > > to what changes he should make to him computer to
> placate the
> > > activation
> > > gods. "Gee, the guy would say, why do you need to
> mirror your
> > hard
> > > drive?"
> > > the reader wrote. "Then they send me to another =
and
> the guy says,
> > > gee, if
> > > you upgrade or restore your drive, or change your
> > configuration, or
> > > backup
> > > to Ghost, or use a RAID array, or use a disk
> defragger, the
> > activation
> > > doesn't like it. Then they start asking why I need =
to
> do these
> > > things, which
> > > is none of their business."
> > >
> > >
> > > Some of the Adobe techs mentioned that what the =
reader
> really
> > needed
> > > to fix
> > > the activation problem was "Patch 2.70."
> Unfortunately, it seems
> > > Patch 2.70
> > > is not provided to just any old Acrobat customer, =
and the
> > reader had to
> > > supplicate his way up the support ladder to find
> someone who
> > could
> > > authorize
> > > sending it to him. "I finally get to the right guy =
and
> he asks me
> > > why I need
> > > it and why I can't stop mirroring and defragging =
and
> using Ghost.
> > > Finally he
> > > says he'll escalate the issue and I'll have an =
e-mail
> in 24
> > hours.
> > > Next day
> > > there's no e-mail so I call back. It was never
> escalated and
> > I have
> > > to start
> > > the process of filing to get the patch all over =
again."
> > >
> > >
> > > The reader is a stubborn man, though, and he
> eventually prevailed
> > > upon Adobe
> > > to send him Patch 2.70. It didn't help. Several =
more
> weeks of
> > > escalations to
> > > supervisors and higher levels of Adobe support =
have
> followed,
> > without
> > > success. Last week Adobe promised to send him a =
copy
> of Acrobat -
> > > presumably
> > > the corporate version - that would get around the =
problem.
> > But at last
> > > report it still hasn't shown, so the reader's copy =
of
> Acrobat
> > 8 remains
> > > deactivated.
> > >
> > >
> > > "The amount of time, support, and money that Adobe =
and
> I have
> > wasted
> > > on this
> > > is crazy," the reader wrote. "I understand =
protecting your
> > product, but
> > > these people have gone way overboard with this
> activation that's
> > > tied so
> > > closely to the hardware that you can't do anything
> that doesn't
> > > upset it.
> > > Many people back up, restore, defrag and mirror =
disks and
> > many more
> > > will do
> > > so as the prices come down. I think Adobe needs to
> clean some
> > > management
> > > house, toss out this stupid activation process, =
and
> get something
> > > that works
> > > instead of the runaround."
> > >
------=_NextPart_000_053B_01C75A9D.AEB8F230
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16397" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I don't see average =
consumers misusing=20
the term. I see strongly opinionated and technical folks like = those
that=20
would have their own blog or would post to a public forum. This = isn't
a=20
consumer topic beyond that some folks are trying to make it one. =
That=20
isn't to say there aren't real issues with interoperability and = longevity
such=20
as you read about lately with itunes. This is just a single = application
of=20
DRM. The same aspects that are an issue for this application are = not=20
issues for the application of DRM to your medical records or sensitive =
corporate=20
documents.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich Gauszka" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com">gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com</=
A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45e4e27a$1@w3.nls.net">news:45e4e27a$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>I=20
don't disagree. The notable constant though is that people are =
<BR>including=20
DRM in their complaints just because they can. If DRM was as =
<BR>beneficial=20
for consumers as the industry propagandists spout I highly <BR>doubt =
you'd see=20
this trend.<BR><BR><BR>Rich wrote:<BR>> It's not =
just DRM=20
and this, it's DRM and anything people want to <BR>> complain about =
that=20
can be stretched to garner more support. Broadly I <BR>> see =
it used=20
for anything that restricts access, copying, or similar. I =
<BR>>=20
think people believe they will get more sympathy for their position =
from=20
<BR>> a certain audience if they apply the term DRM than if they =
are=20
honest.<BR>> <BR>> Rich<BR>> <BR>>=20
<BR>> "Rich Gauszka" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com">gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com</=
A><BR>> =20
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmai=
l.com</A>>>=20
wrote in message<BR>> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45e4b899@w3.nls.net">news:45e4b899@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>>=
=20
I understand the point you are making. Unfortunately, like it or=20
not,<BR>> DRM and Activation are starting =
to be=20
used interchangeably in everyday<BR>> use ( =
as in=20
the Infoworld Gripeline blog )<BR>> <BR>>=20
<BR>> Rich=20
wrote:<BR>> > =
This is=20
neither a content nor a service which is one reason=20
I<BR>> > questioned the use of =
DRM. =20
I think the new subject is =
appropriate.<BR>> =20
> <BR>> >=20
Rich<BR>> >=20
<BR>> =20
><BR>> =
> "Rich=20
Gauszka" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com">gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com</=
A><BR>> =20
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmai=
l.com</A>><BR>> =20
> <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmai=
l.com</A>>>=20
wrote in message<BR>> =20
> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45e4b05e$1@w3.nls.net">news:45e4b05e$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
> =20
> It's an inane activation scheme. From =
Microsoft's=20
own<BR>> definition=20
one<BR>> > =
could=20
make the case that Adobe's activation is a=20
content<BR>> owner=20
setting<BR>> =
> the=20
business rules of a file ( a program in this case ).=20
Most<BR>> would=20
use<BR>> > =
'activation' for clarity in this context - so Subject=20
changed<BR>> =20
><BR>> =
> <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.microsoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#d">http://www.mic=
rosoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#d</A><BR>> &n=
bsp;=20
><BR>> =
> =20
digital rights management (DRM)<BR>> =20
><BR>> =
> Any=20
technology used to protect the interests of owners=20
of<BR>> content=20
and<BR>> > =
services (such as copyright owners). Typically,=20
authorized<BR>> =
> =20
recipients or<BR>> =20
> users must acquire a license in order to =
consume=20
the protected<BR>> =20
> material=97files, music, =
movies=97according to the=20
rights or<BR>> business=20
rules<BR>> =
> set=20
by the content owner.<BR>> =20
><BR>> =20
><BR>> =
> Rich=20
wrote:<BR>> =20
> > What does =
this have=20
to do with DRM? Or do you use DRM=20
for<BR>> > =
everything<BR>> =20
> > from actual DRM to encrypted =
email to=20
password protected ZIP<BR>> =20
> files =
to<BR>> =20
> >=20
SSL/TLS?<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> >=20
Rich<BR>> =
> =20
><BR>> =
> =20
><BR>> =
> =20
> "Rich Gauszka" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com</=
A><BR>> =20
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmai=
l.com</A>><BR>> =20
> <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmai=
l.com</A>><BR>> =20
> > <<A =
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmai=
l.com</A>>>=20
wrote in message<BR>> =20
> > <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45e4792a$1@w3.nls.net">news:45e4792a$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
> =20
> > Adobe =
- If you=20
use a disk defragger the activation=20
doesn't<BR>> =
> =20
like it?<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > =20
<BR>> > =20
<BR>> <A=20
=
href=3D"http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/02/acrobat_ac=
tivat.html">http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/02/acroba=
t_activat.html</A><BR>> =20
> > when =
it comes=20
to stupid IT designs as far as the<BR>> =20
activation<BR>> =
> =20
issues I<BR>> =20
> > =
encountered=20
with Adobe. I upgraded from Acrobat 7.0 =
to<BR>> =20
8.0,<BR>> =
> =20
because the<BR>> =20
> > demos =
and=20
features looked great. After installing =
it,<BR>> I=20
didn't<BR>> =20
> > really =
use=20
it<BR>> =
> =20
> for a few months. Then I went to use it =
and it=20
said it<BR>> was=20
not<BR>> =
> =20
> =
activated."<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > When =
the=20
reader went to the menu, he was puzzled =
to<BR>> see=20
both the<BR>> =20
> > =20
"Activate'<BR>> =20
> > and=20
"Deactivate' buttons turned off. "Seems stupid=20
--<BR>> > =20
shouldn't one<BR>> =20
> > =20
always<BR>> =20
> > be=20
highlighted?" the reader wondered. "After calling=20
in,<BR>> > =
Adobe=20
told<BR>> =
> =20
> me =
to<BR>> =20
> > run =
the repair=20
function. I did, and it worked for one=20
day,<BR>> =
> and=20
then<BR>> =
> =20
> it =
was<BR>> =20
> > =
deactivated=20
again and both buttons were off again. =
I<BR>> =20
called again<BR>> =20
> > and=20
waited<BR>> =20
> > on =
hold=20
forever to be told to uninstall and =
reinstall.<BR>> =20
So I<BR>> =
> =20
> uninstalled=20
and<BR>> =
> =20
> it deactivated. I went to reinstall and =
it said I=20
did<BR>> not have=20
an<BR>> =
> =20
> =
original<BR>> =20
> > =
product to=20
upgrade from. Wow, like I'm supposed =
to<BR>> keep=20
all<BR>> =
> =20
> hundred-plus=20
key<BR>> =
> =20
> codes I've ever had from Adobe. So after =
about 3=20
more<BR>> =20
people<BR>> =
> and=20
a<BR>> =
> =20
> lot =
more<BR>> =20
> > time =
on the=20
phone I got around the installation =
and<BR>> =20
activated<BR>> =
> =20
again<BR>> =
> =20
> with =
a<BR>> =20
> > temp =
key. Then=20
within hours it deactivated =
again."<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > The =
reader=20
then entered a support nightmare from =
which<BR>> he=20
is<BR>> > =
yet=20
to<BR>> =
> =20
> =
awaken.<BR>> =20
> > For =
weeks on=20
end, tech after tech would tell him to<BR>> =
run=20
the<BR>> > =
repair<BR>> =20
> > =20
function<BR>> =20
> > and =
reinstall.=20
When that wouldn't work, the techs<BR>> =
would=20
begin<BR>> =
> =20
> speculating=20
as<BR>> =
> =20
> to what changes he should make to him =
computer=20
to<BR>> placate=20
the<BR>> =
> =20
> =
activation<BR>> =20
> > gods. =
"Gee,=20
the guy would say, why do you need to<BR>> =
mirror=20
your<BR>> =
> =20
hard<BR>> =
> =20
> =
drive?"<BR>> =20
> > the =
reader=20
wrote. "Then they send me to another =
and<BR>> the=20
guy says,<BR>> =20
> > gee,=20
if<BR>> =
> =20
> you upgrade or restore your drive, or =
change=20
your<BR>> =
> =20
configuration, or<BR>> =20
> > =20
backup<BR>> =20
> > to =
Ghost, or=20
use a RAID array, or use a disk<BR>> =
defragger,=20
the<BR>> > =
activation<BR>> =20
> > =
doesn't like=20
it. Then they start asking why I need =
to<BR>> do=20
these<BR>> =
> =20
> things,=20
which<BR>> =
> =20
> is none of their=20
business."<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > Some =
of the=20
Adobe techs mentioned that what the =
reader<BR>> =20
really<BR>> =
> =20
needed<BR>> =20
> > to=20
fix<BR>> =
> =20
> the activation problem was "Patch=20
2.70."<BR>> Unfortunately, it=20
seems<BR>> =
> =20
> Patch =
2.70<BR>> =20
> > is not =
provided to just any old Acrobat customer, and=20
the<BR>> > =
reader=20
had to<BR>> =20
> > =
supplicate his=20
way up the support ladder to find<BR>> =
someone=20
who<BR>> > =
could<BR>> =
> =20
> =
authorize<BR>> =20
> > =
sending it to=20
him. "I finally get to the right guy =
and<BR>> he=20
asks me<BR>> =20
> > why I=20
need<BR>> =
> =20
> it and why I can't stop mirroring and =
defragging=20
and<BR>> using=20
Ghost.<BR>> =20
> > =
Finally=20
he<BR>> =
> =20
> says he'll escalate the issue and I'll =
have an=20
e-mail<BR>> in=20
24<BR>> > =20
hours.<BR>> =20
> > Next=20
day<BR>> =
> =20
> there's no e-mail so I call back. It was=20
never<BR>> escalated=20
and<BR>> > =
I=20
have<BR>> =
> =20
> to =
start<BR>> =20
> > the =
process of=20
filing to get the patch all over =
again."<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > The =
reader is=20
a stubborn man, though, and he<BR>> =
eventually=20
prevailed<BR>> =20
> > upon=20
Adobe<BR>> =
> =20
> to send him Patch 2.70. It didn't help. =
Several=20
more<BR>> weeks=20
of<BR>> =
> =20
> escalations=20
to<BR>> =
> =20
> supervisors and higher levels of Adobe =
support=20
have<BR>> =20
followed,<BR>> =
> =20
without<BR>> =20
> > =
success. Last=20
week Adobe promised to send him a copy<BR>> =
of=20
Acrobat -<BR>> =20
> > =20
presumably<BR>> =20
> > the =
corporate=20
version - that would get around the=20
problem.<BR>> =
> =20
But at last<BR>> =20
> > report =
it=20
still hasn't shown, so the reader's copy =
of<BR>> =20
Acrobat<BR>> =
> 8=20
remains<BR>> =20
> > =20
deactivated.<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > "The =
amount of=20
time, support, and money that Adobe =
and<BR>> I=20
have<BR>> =
> =20
wasted<BR>> =20
> > on=20
this<BR>> =
> =20
> is crazy," the reader wrote. "I =
understand=20
protecting your<BR>> =20
> product,=20
but<BR>> =
> =20
> these people have gone way overboard with =
this<BR>> activation=20
that's<BR>> =20
> > tied=20
so<BR>> =
> =20
> closely to the hardware that you can't do =
anything<BR>> that=20
doesn't<BR>> =20
> > upset=20
it.<BR>> =
> =20
> Many people back up, restore, defrag and =
mirror=20
disks and<BR>> =
> =20
many more<BR>> =20
> > will=20
do<BR>> =
> =20
> so as the prices come down. I think Adobe =
needs=20
to<BR>> clean=20
some<BR>> =
> =20
> =
management<BR>> =20
> > house, =
toss=20
out this stupid activation process, =
and<BR>> get=20
something<BR>> =20
> > that=20
works<BR>> =
> =20
> instead of the=20
runaround."<BR>> =20
> ></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_053B_01C75A9D.AEB8F230--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|