|
...
It isn't that protection schemes don't work but that the hackers and criminals eventually catch up. They are like the squirrels in my backyard. They eventually figure out how to get to the birdfeeder regardless of what I do to prevent it.
My point exactly... they don't stop the people they are intended to foil... (Hackers will never buy software. People that use hacked programs are also unlikely to buy software.) They only create inconvenience and confusion for the honest users...
It strikes me as odd that a program primarily designed for professionals, intended to be used away from home where INTERNET connections will be unlikely, would require and INTERNET connection to update.
To update I now have to unrack two main systems that are installed in bars bring them home reactivate the networking,(which is disabled when not in use, and services unloaded), connect to the INTERNET do a two minute update, disable then services again shut down networking, then drag them back to the bars and re-install and test them. About two hours of my time instead of five minutes, to make MTU feel better about a few possible hackers who will beat the protection anyway.
I feel protection schemes like this waste valuable limited development resources, while producing a function of limited life and value. These resources would be better spent improving the and expanding the product line.
If you've been in the business as long as you say them you remember companies like dbase, paradox, Harvard graphics, xywrite, wordstar, and hundreds of others that lost focus on producing the the best product, and wasted valuable development resources creating protection schemes in the belief that they were losing money or that they would make more money. End result they still got hacked and either went out of business or are no longer a major player.
|