Text 16965, 1165 rader
Skriven 2007-02-27 19:49:08 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 16963 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_0571_01C75AA8.587D4A00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
PlaysForSure tackles the same problem as apple tries with itunes and =
their fairplay. The key difference is that PlaysForSure is widely = licensed
to avoid the interoperability problems that apple has with = itunes. Apple
could license PlaysForSure if they wanted.
I don't think the DRM applications to which you refer to are =
generically corporate interests as much as they are content owner = interests.
This is why steve jobs stated the obvious when asserting = that he would like
to offer other people's content without any DRM. Of = course he would as would
probably everyone else who has no interest in = the content itself.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:45e4f15d$1@w3.nls.net...
or you have the idiocy with Microsoft's PlaysForSure certification. =
DRM=20
is currently a mess with various corporate entities in a power =
struggle=20
for control of a market without care of how it affects (screws) the=20
consumer. The average consumer I know either by facial expression or=20
vocally expresses a dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/337/C11865/
While it still appears to be true that PlaysForSure content won't work =
on a Zune, the reverse is completely hunky doory. You can seemingly =
drag=20
songs from the Zune Marketplace onto any PlaysForSure device, like=20
offerings from Rio and Creative.
Rich wrote:
> I don't see average consumers misusing the term. I see strongly=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> issues for the application of DRM to your medical records or =
sensitive=20
> corporate documents.
> =20
> Rich
> =20
>=20
> "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com
> <mailto: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
> including DRM in their complaints just because they can. If DRM =
was as
> beneficial for consumers as the industry propagandists spout I =
highly
> doubt you'd see this trend.
>=20
>=20
> Rich wrote:
> > It's not just DRM and this, it's DRM and anything people =
want to
> > complain about that can be stretched to garner more support.=20
> Broadly I
> > see it used for anything that restricts access, copying, or
> similar. I
> > think people believe they will get more sympathy for their
> position from
> > a certain audience if they apply the term DRM than if they =
are
> honest.
> >=20
> > Rich
> >=20
> >
> > "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com
> <mailto: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 )
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> > >
> > > "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com
> <mailto: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>
> > > > <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
> > =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_0571_01C75AA8.587D4A00
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> PlaysForSure tackles the =
same problem=20
as apple tries with itunes and their fairplay. The key difference = is
that=20
PlaysForSure is widely licensed to avoid the interoperability problems =
that=20
apple has with itunes. Apple could license PlaysForSure if they=20
wanted.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I don't think the DRM =
applications to=20
which you refer to are generically corporate interests as much as they = are=20
content owner interests. This is why steve jobs stated the obvious =
when=20
asserting that he would like to offer other people's content without any =
DRM. Of course he would as would probably everyone else who has no =
interest in the content itself.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </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:45e4f15d$1@w3.nls.net">news:45e4f15d$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>or=20
you have the idiocy with Microsoft's PlaysForSure certification. DRM =
<BR>is=20
currently a mess with various corporate entities in a power struggle =
<BR>for=20
control of a market without care of how it affects (screws) the =
<BR>consumer.=20
The average consumer I know either by facial expression or <BR>vocally =
expresses a dissatisfaction with the current state of =
affairs<BR><BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/337/C11865/">http://www.mobi=
lemag.com/content/100/337/C11865/</A><BR><BR>While=20
it still appears to be true that PlaysForSure content won't work =
<BR>on a=20
Zune, the reverse is completely hunky doory. You can seemingly drag =
<BR>songs=20
from the Zune Marketplace onto any PlaysForSure device, like =
<BR>offerings=20
from Rio and Creative.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Rich =
wrote:<BR>> I=20
don't see average consumers misusing the term. I see strongly =
<BR>>=20
opinionated and technical folks like those that would have their own =
<BR>>=20
blog or would post to a public forum. This isn't a consumer =
topic=20
<BR>> beyond that some folks are trying to make it one. That =
isn't to=20
say <BR>> there aren't real issues with interoperability and =
longevity such=20
as you <BR>> read about lately with itunes. This is just a =
single=20
application of <BR>> DRM. The same aspects that are an issue =
for this=20
application are not <BR>> issues for the application of DRM to your =
medical=20
records or sensitive <BR>> corporate documents.<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
Rich<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> "Rich =
Gauszka"=20
<<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:45e4e27a$1@w3.nls.net">news:45e4e27a$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
> =20
I don't disagree. The notable constant though is that people=20
are<BR>> including DRM in their complaints =
just=20
because they can. If DRM was as<BR>> =
beneficial for=20
consumers as the industry propagandists spout I=20
highly<BR>> doubt you'd see this =
trend.<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> Rich=20
wrote:<BR>> > =
It's not=20
just DRM and this, it's DRM and anything people want=20
to<BR>> > complain about that can =
be=20
stretched to garner more support. <BR>> =
Broadly=20
I<BR>> > see it used for anything =
that=20
restricts access, copying, or<BR>> =
similar. =20
I<BR>> > think people believe they =
will=20
get more sympathy for their<BR>> position=20
from<BR>> > a certain audience if =
they=20
apply the term DRM than if they are<BR>> =20
honest.<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:45e4b899@w3.nls.net">news:45e4b899@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>>=
=20
> I understand the point you are making.=20
Unfortunately, like it<BR>> or=20
not,<BR>> =
> DRM=20
and Activation are starting to be used interchangeably=20
in<BR>> =20
everyday<BR>> =
> =20
use ( as in the Infoworld Gripeline blog=20
)<BR>> =20
><BR>> =20
><BR>> =
> Rich=20
wrote:<BR>> =20
> > This is =
neither a=20
content nor a service which is one<BR>> =
reason=20
I<BR>> =
> =20
> questioned the use of DRM. I think the new subject=20
is<BR>> =20
appropriate.<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> >=20
Rich<BR>> =
> =20
><BR>> =
> =20
><BR>> =
> =20
> "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>><BR>> =20
> <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka@-nospam-hotmai=
l.com</A>><BR>> =20
> > <<A =
=
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=20
activation scheme. From Microsoft's =
own<BR>> =20
> definition=20
one<BR>> =
> =20
> could make the case that Adobe's =
activation is a=20
content<BR>> =
> =20
owner setting<BR>> =20
> > the =
business=20
rules of a file ( a program in this =
case<BR>> ).=20
Most<BR>> =
> would=20
use<BR>> =
> =20
> 'activation' for clarity in this context =
- so=20
Subject<BR>> =20
changed<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > <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=20
management (DRM)<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > Any =
technology=20
used to protect the interests of owners=20
of<BR>> > =
content=20
and<BR>> =
> =20
> services (such as copyright owners). =
Typically,=20
authorized<BR>> =20
> > =
recipients=20
or<BR>> =
> =20
> users must acquire a license in order to =
consume=20
the<BR>> =20
protected<BR>> =20
> > =20
material=97files, music, movies=97according to the rights=20
or<BR>> > =
business=20
rules<BR>> =
> =20
> set by the content=20
owner.<BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > Rich=20
wrote:<BR>> =20
> > =20
> What does this have to do with DRM? Or do =
you<BR>> use DRM=20
for<BR>> =
> =20
> =
everything<BR>> =20
> > =
>=20
from actual DRM to encrypted email to =
password<BR>> =20
protected ZIP<BR>> =20
> > files=20
to<BR>> =
> =20
> >=20
SSL/TLS?<BR>> =20
> > =20
><BR>> =
> =20
> >=20
Rich<BR>> =
> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > =20
><BR>> =
> =20
> > "Rich =
Gauszka"=20
<<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>><BR>> =20
> > =20
> <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmai=
l.com</A>>>=20
wrote in<BR>> =20
message<BR>> =20
> > =20
> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45e4792a$1@w3.nls.net">news:45e4792a$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
> =20
> > =20
> Adobe - If you use a disk defragger=20
the<BR>> activation=20
doesn't<BR>> =20
> > like=20
it?<BR>> =
> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > =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
> > =20
> when it comes to stupid IT designs as far =
as=20
the<BR>> > =
activation<BR>> =20
> > issues =
I<BR>> =
> =20
> > =
encountered=20
with Adobe. I upgraded from Acrobat<BR>> =
7.0=20
to<BR>> > =20
8.0,<BR>> =
> =20
> because =
the<BR>> =20
> > =20
> demos and features looked great.=20
After<BR>> installing=20
it,<BR>> > =
I=20
didn't<BR>> =20
> > =20
> really use=20
it<BR>> =
> =20
> > for a =
few=20
months. Then I went to use it and it<BR>> =
said=20
it<BR>> > =
was=20
not<BR>> =
> =20
> > =20
activated."<BR>> =20
> > =20
><BR>> =
> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > =20
> When the reader went to the menu, he was =
puzzled=20
to<BR>> > =
see both=20
the<BR>> =
> =20
> > =20
"Activate'<BR>> =20
> > =20
> and "Deactivate' buttons turned off.=20
"Seems<BR>> stupid=20
--<BR>> =
> =20
> shouldn't=20
one<BR>> =
> =20
> > =20
always<BR>> =20
> > =20
> be highlighted?" the reader wondered.=20
"After<BR>> calling=20
in,<BR>> =
> =20
> Adobe =
told<BR>> =20
> > =20
> me =
to<BR>> =20
> > =20
> run the repair function. I did, and it=20
worked<BR>> for one=20
day,<BR>> =
> =20
> and =
then<BR>> =20
> > =20
> it =
was<BR>> =20
> > =20
> deactivated again and both buttons were=20
off<BR>> again.=20
I<BR>> > =
called=20
again<BR>> =
> =20
> > and=20
waited<BR>> =20
> > =20
> on hold forever to be told to uninstall=20
and<BR>> =20
reinstall.<BR>> =
> =20
So I<BR>> =
> =20
> > =
uninstalled=20
and<BR>> =
> =20
> > it=20
deactivated. I went to reinstall and it =
said<BR>> I=20
did<BR>> > =
not=20
have an<BR>> =20
> > =20
> =
original<BR>> =20
> > =20
> product to upgrade from. Wow, like I'm =
supposed=20
to<BR>> > =
keep=20
all<BR>> =
> =20
> > =
hundred-plus=20
key<BR>> =
> =20
> > codes =
I've=20
ever had from Adobe. So after about<BR>> 3=20
more<BR>> =
> =20
people<BR>> =20
> > and=20
a<BR>> =
> =20
> > lot=20
more<BR>> =
> =20
> > time =
on the=20
phone I got around the installation =
and<BR>> =20
> =
activated<BR>> =20
> > =20
again<BR>> =
> =20
> > with=20
a<BR>> =
> =20
> > temp =
key. Then=20
within hours it deactivated =
again."<BR>> =20
> > =20
><BR>> =
> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > =20
> The reader then entered a support=20
nightmare<BR>> from=20
which<BR>> =
> he=20
is<BR>> =
> =20
> yet =
to<BR>> =20
> > =20
> =
awaken.<BR>> =20
> > =20
> For weeks on end, tech after tech would =
tell him=20
to<BR>> > =
run=20
the<BR>> =
> =20
> =
repair<BR>> =20
> > =20
> =
function<BR>> =20
> > =20
> and reinstall. When that wouldn't work, =
the=20
techs<BR>> =
> would=20
begin<BR>> =
> =20
> > =
speculating=20
as<BR>> =
> =20
> > to =
what=20
changes he should make to him computer=20
to<BR>> > =
placate=20
the<BR>> =
> =20
> > =20
activation<BR>> =20
> > =20
> gods. "Gee, the guy would say, why do you =
need=20
to<BR>> > =
mirror=20
your<BR>> =
> =20
> =
hard<BR>> =20
> > =20
> =
drive?"<BR>> =20
> > =20
> the reader wrote. "Then they send me to =
another=20
and<BR>> > =
the guy=20
says,<BR>> =
> =20
> > gee,=20
if<BR>> =
> =20
> > you =
upgrade or=20
restore your drive, or change =
your<BR>> =20
> > =
configuration,=20
or<BR>> =
> =20
> > =20
backup<BR>> =20
> > =20
> to Ghost, or use a RAID array, or use a=20
disk<BR>> =
> =20
defragger, the<BR>> =20
> > =20
activation<BR>> =20
> > =20
> doesn't like it. Then they start asking =
why=20
I<BR>> need=20
to<BR>> > =
do=20
these<BR>> =
> =20
> > =
things,=20
which<BR>> =
> =20
> > is =
none of=20
their business."<BR>> =20
> > =20
><BR>> =
> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > =20
> Some of the Adobe techs mentioned that =
what=20
the<BR>> =20
reader<BR>> =
> =20
really<BR>> =20
> > =20
needed<BR>> =20
> > =20
> to =
fix<BR>> =20
> > =20
> the activation problem was "Patch=20
2.70."<BR>> =
> =20
Unfortunately, it seems<BR>> =20
> > =20
> Patch =
2.70<BR>> =20
> > =20
> is not provided to just any old=20
Acrobat<BR>> customer, and=20
the<BR>> =
> =20
> reader had=20
to<BR>> =
> =20
> > =
supplicate his=20
way up the support ladder to =
find<BR>> =20
> someone =
who<BR>> =20
> > =20
could<BR>> =
> =20
> > =20
authorize<BR>> =20
> > =20
> sending it to him. "I finally get to the=20
right<BR>> guy=20
and<BR>> > =
he asks=20
me<BR>> =
> =20
> > why I=20
need<BR>> =
> =20
> > it and =
why I=20
can't stop mirroring and<BR>> defragging=20
and<BR>> > =
using=20
Ghost.<BR>> =20
> > =20
> Finally =
he<BR>> =20
> > =20
> says he'll escalate the issue and I'll =
have=20
an<BR>> =20
e-mail<BR>> =
> in=20
24<BR>> =
> =20
> =
hours.<BR>> =20
> > =20
> Next =
day<BR>> =20
> > =20
> there's no e-mail so I call back. It was=20
never<BR>> =
> =20
escalated and<BR>> =20
> > I=20
have<BR>> =
> =20
> > to=20
start<BR>> =
> =20
> > the =
process of=20
filing to get the patch all over<BR>> =20
again."<BR>> =20
> > =20
><BR>> =
> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > =20
> The reader is a stubborn man, though, and =
he<BR>> > =20
eventually prevailed<BR>> =20
> > =20
> upon =
Adobe<BR>> =20
> > =20
> to send him Patch 2.70. It didn't help.=20
Several<BR>> =20
more<BR>> =
> weeks=20
of<BR>> =
> =20
> > =
escalations=20
to<BR>> =
> =20
> > =
supervisors=20
and higher levels of Adobe support =
have<BR>> =20
> =
followed,<BR>> =20
> > =20
without<BR>> =20
> > =20
> success. Last week Adobe promised to send =
him=20
a<BR>> =
copy<BR>> =20
> of Acrobat=20
-<BR>> =
> =20
> > =20
presumably<BR>> =20
> > =20
> the corporate version - that would get=20
around<BR>> the=20
problem.<BR>> =20
> > But at =
last<BR>> =
> =20
> > report =
it=20
still hasn't shown, so the reader's<BR>> =
copy=20
of<BR>> > =20
Acrobat<BR>> =20
> > 8=20
remains<BR>> =20
> > =20
> =20
deactivated.<BR>> =20
> > =20
><BR>> =
> =20
> =
><BR>> =20
> > =20
> "The amount of time, support, and money=20
that<BR>> &
|