Make the registration data in the titlebar optional

[Clo]

2Sheepdog
Hi Stefan,

• You caught my thoughts exactly.
* I hope that cray'll remove this insulting phrase before an official warning…

V G
Claude
Clo

[Randy]

If you ask me (which you haven't), I'd say cray has been insulting and condescending the entire time.

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 05-06-2004 17:12:56 +0000 Sheepdog wrote:

S> downloading new keygenerators

There are no keygens for Commander (at least yet %).[/face]

[Sheepdog]

[face=courier]On 05-06-2004 17:12:56 +0000 Sheepdog wrote:

S> downloading new keygenerators

There are no keygens for Commander (at least yet %).[/face]

There are. You do not get a key you can place into commander path but the totalcmd.exe is going to be patched with your selected name.

sheepdog

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 07-06-2004 00:08:11 +0000 Sheepdog wrote:

S> There are. You do not get a key you can place into
S> commander path but the totalcmd.exe is going to be
S> patched with your selected name.

%) You talking about cracks, not keygens. And you don't need to "patch totalcmd.exe with your selected name" to place it into tiltle bar of unregistered version, actually.
So, as I said, there are no keygens for Commander %).

np: Shivaree - Goodnight Moon[/face]

[Sheepdog]

%) You talking about cracks, not keygens. And you don't need to "patch totalcmd.exe with your selected name" to place it into tiltle bar of unregistered version, actually.

So it's just a different naming. The people who made this programs decided to call it keygens so who am I to correct them

sheepdog

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 07-06-2004 07:12:51 +0000 Sheepdog wrote:

S> So it's just a different naming.

So, you just don't know what you are talking about %). So may be you shouldn't?[/face]

[wanderer]

2 Christian
After reading some of the posts in this thread and the previous one concerning this matter, i'd like to express my opinion too. I believe that one's name should be considered private data. Until recently, I was using TC at home only. About half-a-year ago i bought a laptop. I'm not using it very much in public but i would certainly be annoyed if someone i didn't know, saw my name in TC and began talking to me like he was an old friend. Ok, i admit, perhaps i wouldn't be that annoyed if this "someone" happened to be a really beautiful woman but that's not the issue here.

IMHO, a good thing to do would be to have an option in the ordering form for the users to decide whether they want their data (name/company name) to appear in the title bar or not. If the user decides he/she does not want any data visible, the license key could contain a flag indicating no user data will be displayed.

I believe we should not talk selectively about freedom. Either we believe in freedom in all aspects of our lives or we don't really believe. We cannot talk one day about software patents and the restrictions they impose on our creativity (and other very correct stuff) and the next day we tell the registered users of an application that their personal data will be exposed to anyone and that there's nothing they can do about it (except not registering the application!).

IMO it's not correct to propose to anyone to provide fake data as a solution in order for his name to remain private. I like to go to the About box and see my name in it. It reminds me that i've done my duty and payed for a program that is indeed essential to me and its cost is very reasonable.

Having said that, i ask you Christian to reconsider your policy on this matter. Personally i don't believe the appearance of the user's name in the title bar affects the decision of a user on how to use TC (buy it, use a crack or press 123 all the time). I'm pretty sure many of the registered users of this forum have "pressed 123" in the past for much more than one month and/or have used cracked versions of TC. If you made a poll about the reasons they decided to register TC though, i have a feeling that the vast majority of them would answer one thing: TC is a great combination of very useful tools at a very reasonable price. It's certainly a program worth paying for. I know i believe that.

My 0.02 Euros on the matter

[shammat]

OK I will add my 2 cents as well:

I really can't understand all this concerns about showing the name in public. Honestly, what does it matter if someone knows that your name John Doe?
You are probably revealing more personal information about yourself if you use a mobile phone in public then with your name in the title bar of an application.

I would be much more concerned about the other stuff that is displayed on my screen then my name.

[wanderer]

OK I will add my 2 cents as well:

I really can't understand all this concerns about showing the name in public. Honestly, what does it matter if someone knows that your name John Doe?
You are probably revealing more personal information about yourself if you use a mobile phone in public then with your name in the title bar of an application.

That's true.

I would be much more concerned about the other stuff that is displayed on my screen then my name.

So you think it's nice to force a user (for example) of an application you create to have his name displayed if he decides to pay and register for it? You think it's correct to deny him the right to hide his name if he wants to?

Of course we reveal much more data about ourselves everyday when we visit sites on the internet. We reveal data even if we're just connected to it and doing nothing! I'm not commenting on that. I just say it doesn't sound logical to me to say to a user "if you register my application, your name will be displayed in the title bar and there's nothing you can do about it except give a fake name"!

Revealing personal data while talking to a cellphone is your decision. Having your name displayed in the titlebar of a program without being able to do much about it is someone else's decision. It just doesn't feel right.

I like Christian's logic in many matters. I just disagree on this one. It's his decision of course.

[norfie]

[Sheepdog]

So, you just don't know what you are talking about %). So may be you shouldn't?

I do know perfectly well what I'm talking about. According to your posting I understood that you did not know what I'm talking about. So I explained myself.
You seem to think that I'm not using the appropriate term. So I would be very interested to hear about the standards a keygenerator has to fulfil. And wich authority has prescribed it. ( Hope you would not say things like 'it's well known').

Communicating always means to enter an agreement about terms (e.g. is 1MB 1000 or 1024 Kb). So if you don't like to find agreements about terms with me, I recommend to ignore my postings.

sheepdog

[icfu]

@wanderer:
Excellent posting! Unfortunately I am sure that it won't help, nevertheless.

@Sheepdog:
A keygenerator generates a (valid) key to register a program without modifying program code.
A crack modifies program code so that it just looks and reacts like it was registered.

It's as simple as that.

The so called "viruscheck" in totalcmd.exe was not developed to protect customers from viruses but to make cracker's life harder.

If there was a possibility to develop a keygenerator for TC ghisler would not need to put any efforts in protecting the exe anymore as it would be useless anyway.

There is no keygenerator for TC and there will never be one.

Icfu

[pdavit]

It is very simple: As long as the name is displayed in the title bar, users are not going to give away their keys to friends and relatives, or put it online. That's why this is an effective form of copy protection.

That I thought was the reason (and basically IS, based on Christian’s comments on the other related thread) for the presence of the name in the title bar. But is it really effective as Christian has mentioned?

If a user doesn’t want to share his wincmd.key file (and he/she shouldn’t as denoted in the license agreement) the only path to follow is to download the crack for his/her friend (that’s my policy when I introduce TC to a friend for the first time). So, based on that, probably a great number of registered users have a crack as well since, for one more time, the “copy protection” itself is leading to hacking (passively in the current situation) or to put it more softly: since following devotedly the license agreement users don’t share their key file.

In other words, the “copy protection” scheme followed in my humble opinion does not reduce hacking (passively or actively) but reduces or completely eliminates wincmd.key sharing. Not the same thing!

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 07-06-2004 16:58:15 +0000 Sheepdog wrote:

S> I do know perfectly well what I'm talking about. According
S> to your posting I understood that you did not know what
S> I'm talking about.

2norfie

This is what I call "know talks" %).

S> So I explained myself.

Yep, you already did - everything is as clear as day, and not only for me %).

S> You seem to think that I'm not using the appropriate term.

This is not what I "seem to think", this is how the things are.

S> So I would be very interested to hear about the standards
S> a keygenerator has to fulfil. And wich authority has
S> prescribed it. ( Hope you would not say things like 'it's
S> well known').

I'm not interested in giving you free lessons of any kind any more, my fellow Sheepdog. Moreover, icfu already did it perfectly - I can't say better even if I wanted to. But if you need an authority, ask Christian - he would be really surprised with your "keygenerators" news %).

S> So if you don't like to find agreements about terms with
S> me, I recommend to ignore my postings.

Well, I can just ignore you and your posting AT ALL. The only term is you will ignore me and mine as well w/o any mentioning and quotations. So, do we have a deal?[/face]