[RANT]False Beeprog. AGAIN.
bqt at update.uu.se
Tue Jun 23 11:32:39 CDT 2015
On 2015-06-23 18:10, Paul Koning wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
>> On 2015-06-23 17:59, Alexandre Souza wrote:
>>>> I doubt there any legal problems with their course of action. They are
>>>> not obliged to ensure that their software works correctly on a pirate
>>>> copy of their hardware.
>>>> If they add some additional checks, and they trap out on a clone, I
>>>> doubt that could be considered illegal. They do not try to destroy
>>>> your device. Their software just refuse to run. And I can't see it
>>>> other than they are in their right to do that. Talk with the
>>>> manufacturer of the clone for a software update from them instead.
>>> If you use a software newer than 2.62, it bricks your clone device.
>> Yes. Ask the manufacturer of the device to fix it. Do you really expect that someone who have nothing to do with the device has any responsibility here? You (or whoever) install software that was not intended for the device on it anyway, and then you blame the maker of that software.
> It depends. If the failure is an accidental side effect of a failed attempt to talk to the device, that’s excusable. If the code goes out of its way to disable the device, it is not. It’s a bit like bringing your Ford to a Chevy garage. A result of “I can’t fix that” is fine. Having the technicians pull out the spark plugs and say “ok, here is your car back” is not.
But unless I misunderstood things, the software merely does a check if
the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
>> Do you also try to install OS-X on a DELL laptop, and claim that it's Apples fault that your DELL machine don't work? (God knows what interesting things might happen if you actually try this...)
> Most likely it will detect the wrong hardware and simply say “not supported” and stop. But it won’t wipe the device BIOS in retaliation.
What if it accidentally do write something to some NVR just by the
process of trying to detect if the hardware makes sense? (We had that
problem with NetBSD on VAX 4000 machines for many years, where it tried
to probe for some hardware which on that specific machine actually was
some NVRAM with parameters that NetBSD smashed.)
And I would also hope it would just display a message, and then refuse
Where is the difference?
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
More information about the cctalk