Author Topic: Reasons for hacking DSOs  (Read 93668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9488
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #150 on: March 22, 2016, 12:16:24 pm »
Quote
The hardware is fully operational and the means to use it fully documented. You could install another operating system than Windows free of charge if you wish.
False in many cases: see UEFI.
well this is new? i'll sure avoid those kind of hardware that wont let me install any OS version that i like. unless i can quite happily live with the bundled OS.

anybody agree to this can buy the hardware and agree to the limitation outlined, even though the hardware is capable of running more than that (other OSes). this is just a matter of agreeing to the term or not, simple. you agree, you buy, dont mourn. you dont agree, you dont buy. you agree, you buy, and then you hack. you are violating the term thats it, the seller has the right to sue you, and they can take any necessary action to avoid further hack. if they lose sale because of that, its their problem. our problem is violating the term. most problem when people buy and mourn, is when the buyer failed to read the T&C, or the seller tend to keep the T&C hidden or didnt warn the buyer, in this later case i prefer to call them cheating.

Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.
no. the manufacturer/seller specifically told you, you only can use some of it with the price you pay. if you want all of it, you have to pay for the "license key". so "in agreeing" with that "agreement", you give your money to the seller. there is no who stealing who, both party agreed to the terms. and then the hacking, the "copyright violation", this is a clear, "who's right who's wrong".

this is not 18th century anymore where we can only think about "hardware" to be judged as stealing. "software" can be duplicated, the original is kept with the MAKER, correct, but... any duplicate you possess without permission or in violation with the T&C, is just as equally wrong as "stealing a tangible matter", imho. but depending on how the manufacturer sees this as risking their business or well-beingness. if someone steal your old shoe that you dont use anymore, you see this as not so serious stealing and we tend to apologize the theft, but not so if the stolen item is priced so much that really meant something to us. so the seriousness is also depending how it will affect the manufacturer/seller side. ymmv.
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #151 on: March 22, 2016, 12:21:38 pm »
Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.

They should be paying you to take away this useless piece of equipment, right? :palm:

Quote
So - the next time you take a flight somewhere, you buy your economy ticket and when you get on the plane decide you want to occupy a business class seat - or maybe first class ... and your argument is 'I bought a seat on this plane - and I want that one!'

Exactly.

 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13798
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #152 on: March 22, 2016, 12:55:05 pm »
False, in most cases. Most people buy a software+hardware bundle.
Which could be in violation of many consumer laws. Google Windows refund.

Quote
False in many cases: see UEFI.
Thanks for making me aware of this, so I can avoid it.

Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.

How can denying access to something that they never had be stealing?  How can selling someone exactly what was on the spec. sheet for the stated price a problem?

You're right. Selling someone some hardware with half of it disabled, is not stealing but it's still wrong, just as using unlicensed  software is. Still I suppose two wrongs, don't make a right.

So - the next time you take a flight somewhere, you buy your economy ticket and when you get on the plane decide you want to occupy a business class seat - or maybe first class ... and your argument is 'I bought a seat on this plane - and I want that one!'

No different to advanced software features.

You didn't pay for the feature, so you aren't entitled to make use of it.
Another silly and completely invalid analogy.

By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.

This is not the case with using software without the license or firmware hacking. There could be a 1000s of extra unlicensed users of the product, who'll never ever pay to use it. Those 1000s of extra unlicensed users incur no extra cost to the developer. If anything those extra users could be: finding bugs, providing free technical support, by helping people on bulletin boards on the Internet and increasing awareness of the software, so will benefit the developer anyway, even if they've not paid them any money.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #153 on: March 22, 2016, 01:02:14 pm »
Selling someone some hardware with half of it disabled, is not stealing but it's still wrong

You'd rather they build a special model with the exact feature set and sell it to you for more money?

If they do that you won't feel 'wronged' when they sell it to you?

 :palm:

« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 01:05:54 pm by Fungus »
 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1826
  • Country: ch
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #154 on: March 22, 2016, 03:00:17 pm »
So all this "they put the entire software on the device, because they're lazy and it deserves to be hacked" is nonsense. The software/firmware is the majority of the dev cost on these new DSO's and a very valuable part of the IP, and sending it out to thousands of people, encrypted or not, would be lunacy.
Then don't. Require service center upgrades.

That is hard to agree with. PC hardware is completely useless without software. It needs the software to accomplish anything useful. If you buy bare PC hardware, you can design and code your own operating system to make it do whatever you want, however you want. If, however, you want an operating system that is already done and ready to go, you may have to pay for that (Windows for example).

By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?

Not at all. But I have never seen any PC supplied with software that would limit you to using half the RAM you have installed. That's the entire difference. 100% of the hardware you bought is available to whatever software you want to run on it, and the supplied software platform is there to enable it, not restrict it. Again there is a big distinction between software functionality like protocol decoding, and limiting your access to the hardware you are in possession of to be able to provide unlocks later.

Sensible options are OK, but many of those currently offered by manufacturers aren't. Choose the right ones and you won't have issues.

We could, as an alternative, offer 4 or 5 different hardware variants each with it's own fixed features and pricing. When you buy it you are stuck with it forever.
Again, require service center upgrades. Customers have an upgrade path and you're covered against hacks.
Whoever chooses to distribute all the capability exposes themselves to it being accessed without authorization regardless of how right or wrong it is.

As for 24MB vs 12MB.... that is going to make what difference, exactly, in practice?
So you're confirming that the $200 memory upgrade for the Rigol scopes is pointless, thanks for agreeing! I that case it wouldn't hurt them to make it available by default.

You Americans keep forgetting that not everyone lives in a place with all the BS and get along quite fine. This kind of rubbish is holding the economy back, rather than advancing it.
And the result is not people being rewarded for their development costs but patent trolls who make it difficult for everyone else to innovate.
+1.

False in many cases: see UEFI.
UEFI allows you to install whatever you want. If you're not careful you may lose the keys that auto-activate the bundled software which could cause a loss if you wanted to put it back on later,  but you can back them up. No problem.

It allows me to capture the customers looking for a lower cost of entry and also be interesting to the higher-end with only a single manufacturing configuration - everyone wins.
No, everyone (from your customers) loses. By making feature X a $100 option that 10% of people will buy those who do will be ripped off, and those who don't won't have access to a tool that if it had been included by default for $10 extra could have worthy for them.

Another silly and completely invalid analogy.

By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.

This is not the case with using software without the license or firmware hacking. There could be a 1000s of extra unlicensed users of the product, who'll never ever pay to use it. Those 1000s of extra unlicensed users incur no extra cost to the developer. If anything those extra users could be: finding bugs, providing free technical support, by helping people on bulletin boards on the Internet and increasing awareness of the software, so will benefit the developer anyway, even if they've not paid them any money.
+1.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 03:08:46 pm by Kilrah »
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #155 on: March 22, 2016, 03:17:26 pm »
Another silly and completely invalid analogy.

By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.

Nitpicking the details to make the analogy invalid? Really?  :palm:

What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #156 on: March 22, 2016, 03:21:42 pm »
I have never seen any PC supplied with software that would limit you to using half the RAM you have installed.

Just because they haven't done it with RAM yet doesn't mean it would be wrong to do so.

What about CPUs? I bet you've owned a CPU that could easily go faster if they took off the limiter. That happens all the time.

The majority of CPUs out there are artificially limited. How do you feel about that? Should we be starting a class action lawsuit because we're all being "wronged"? Let's see if you can find a lawyer who'll take on that cause for you.



 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10892
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #157 on: March 22, 2016, 03:25:31 pm »
By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?

Not at all. But I have never seen any PC supplied with software that would limit you to using half the RAM you have installed. That's the entire difference. 100% of the hardware you bought is available to whatever software you want to run on it, and the supplied software platform is there to enable it, not restrict it. Again there is a big distinction between software functionality like protocol decoding, and limiting your access to the hardware you are in possession of to be able to provide unlocks later.

Wrong again. Microsoft limited my WinXP Home to only use half my hardware: one processor core out of two.

Quote
Sensible options are OK, but many of those currently offered by manufacturers aren't. Choose the right ones and you won't have issues.

And I suppose you think you are the authority on what it sensible or not? Twit. The manufacturer is free to choose and you are free to use them or to go elsewhere.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1826
  • Country: ch
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #158 on: March 22, 2016, 03:45:57 pm »
Just because they haven't done it with RAM yet doesn't mean it would be wrong to do so.
They of course could do it, but there likely would be a massive uproar. It's much smaller with scopes from the few-but-yet-half of those voicing their opinion on this thread and so far scope manufacturers have been able to get away with it, but it's the same thing.

What about CPUs? I bet you've owned a CPU that could easily go faster if they took off the limiter. That happens all the time.
Can't find an analogy that is more wrong - It isn't illegal to overclock my CPU, and once it's in my hands I can very well and totally legally get the performance of a part that would have cost double (and incidentally I do, but I tend to rather get the expensive part and push it to the level of one that doesn't exist). If you want to put that as an analogy then we can turn it over and all software limitations can be legally broken without issue.

Wrong again. Microsoft limited my WinXP Home to only use half my hardware: one processor core out of two.
Unless you have a machine with 2 sockets you're not limited at all. And I wouldn't believe any machine with 2 sockets would ever have been sold with XP Home. Or if it had then a compaint with the seller (or a switch to another one as he'd be highly stupid) would have been in order.


And I suppose you think you are the authority on what it sensible or not?
Myself? No. But just see the others who have the same view, then extrapolate. I'm certainly not alone.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 03:50:44 pm by Kilrah »
 

Offline Helix70

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
  • Country: au
  • VK4JNA
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #159 on: March 22, 2016, 03:57:52 pm »
Comparing to the PC is ridiculous, it is a low margin product, unlike high end test gear. The facts are simple, if you use the software/firmware supplied with the unit, and it imposes a licence for certain features, then circumventing those constitutes a breach of the licence agreement, and invalidates your contract with the supplier. You do not have the right to enable features that you have not paid for.

All of this "it is my hardware" rubbish is exactly that. By all means write your own software for your oscilloscope, and liberate the hardware, but if you use the supplied software/firmware, you do not own the right to use it in a way that you have not licenced.

My pay TV set top box has the ability to stream movies on demand. Unless I pay for the movie, it will be disabled. The hardware is all there, but it s of no use unless I pay for the pay per view. When I am done, they turn it off again. If you want segmented memory, you pay for it, and they will enable it. Sure, the memory is in there, but you haven't payed for the licence to use it with the software.
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10892
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #160 on: March 22, 2016, 03:58:38 pm »
Just because they haven't done it with RAM yet doesn't mean it would be wrong to do so.
They of course could do it, but there likely would be a massive uproar. It's much smaller with scopes from the few-but-yet-half of those voicing their opinion on this thread and so far scope manufacturers have been able to get away with it, but it's the same thing.

What about CPUs? I bet you've owned a CPU that could easily go faster if they took off the limiter. That happens all the time.
Can't find an analogy that is more wrong - It isn't illegal to overclock my CPU, and once it's in my hands I can very well and totally legally get the performance of a part that would have cost double (and incidentally I do, but I tend to rather get the expensive part and push it to the level of one that doesn't exist). If you want to put that as an analogy then we can turn it over and all software limitations can be legally broken without issue.

Wrong again. Microsoft limited my WinXP Home to only use half my hardware: one processor core out of two.
Unless you have a machine with 2 sockets you're not limited at all. And I wouldn't believe any machine with 2 sockets would ever have been sold with XP Home. Or if it had then a compaint with the seller (or a switch to another one as he'd be highly stupid) would have been in order.

The point is that you are wrong: MS did limit me to only using half my hardware. Your beliefs and argument is fallacious.

(Not that it is relevant to the point and your avoidance of the point, but at that time there were only opteron systems with two sockets. What do you suggest in that case?)

Quote
And I suppose you think you are the authority on what it sensible or not?
Myself? No. But just see the others who have the same view, then extrapolate. I'm certainly not alone.

Ah. The old "proof by numbers of believers" argument. Always was unimpressive, remains unimpressive, and clearly indicates that you know your chain of "reasoning" has run out of steam.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1826
  • Country: ch
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #161 on: March 22, 2016, 04:07:12 pm »
Wrong again. Microsoft limited my WinXP Home to only use half my hardware: one processor core out of two.
Both my use of a quad-core PC on XP and Microsoft's documentation are wrong then...  ::)
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-hardware/multi-core-processor-and-multiprocessor-limit-for/abd0a0ce-4ac2-484b-88cb-fbf93beb54e0?auth=1

Most likely you're confused:
Quote
Dual-Core

Microsoft's licensing policy limits the number of processors Windows supports for its Home and Professional versions, as outlined below. It's important to understand, however, that this is on a per-processor basis, not a per-core basis. This means that, under the licensing policy, a dual- or even quad-core processor counts as a single processor---something that confused many people in the early days of dual-core technology.

Or seeing the below, not using proper terminology:
at that time there were only opteron systems with two sockets. What do you suggest in that case?)
What I said, complain to your vendor as they should never have supplied you that machine with a copy of XP Home. Microsoft has nothing to do with that.

Ah. The old "proof by numbers of believers" argument. Always was unimpressive
Well... it's people's actions that make things change, and usually the bigger the number the higher the chances. The old "dismissing them as unimpressive" argument is your last resort at trying to discourage them from starting the revolution  ;D
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 04:14:08 pm by Kilrah »
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #162 on: March 22, 2016, 04:16:22 pm »
Most likely you're confused:
Quote
Dual-Core

Microsoft's licensing policy limits the number of processors Windows supports for its Home and Professional versions, as outlined below. It's important to understand, however, that this is on a per-processor basis, not a per-core basis. This means that, under the licensing policy, a dual- or even quad-core processor counts as a single processor---something that confused many people in the early days of dual-core technology.

More nit-picking to try to avoid the real argument.  :palm:

(Which is: Microsoft DID artificially limit the number of CPUs people were allowed to use via software )

 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1826
  • Country: ch
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #163 on: March 22, 2016, 04:18:30 pm »
Buuuut nobody in their right mind would have shipped PC hardware with a version of Windows that limited usage of that hardware, as is with the scopes and is what people complain about. That's where the comparison ends, beyond that the 2 platforms are too different to compare.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #164 on: March 22, 2016, 04:27:38 pm »
What about CPUs? I bet you've owned a CPU that could easily go faster if they took off the limiter. That happens all the time.
It isn't illegal to overclock my CPU, and once it's in my hands I

But ... is it wrong to sell an "underclocked" cpu?

The claim being made is that Rigol is doing something bad, eg:

Selling someone some hardware with half of it disabled, is not stealing but it's still wrong

The question I actually asked in my original post (which you neatly trimmed) was:

"The majority of CPUs out there are artificially limited. Should we be starting a class action lawsuit because we're all being "wronged"?"
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2847
  • Country: gb
  • Only sparsely active but available via PM
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #165 on: March 22, 2016, 04:53:11 pm »
Most likely you're confused:
Quote
Dual-Core

Microsoft's licensing policy limits the number of processors Windows supports for its Home and Professional versions, as outlined below. It's important to understand, however, that this is on a per-processor basis, not a per-core basis. This means that, under the licensing policy, a dual- or even quad-core processor counts as a single processor---something that confused many people in the early days of dual-core technology.

More nit-picking to try to avoid the real argument.  :palm:

(Which is: Microsoft DID artificially limit the number of CPUs people were allowed to use via software )

It's only nitpicking if you don't understand the difference between a CPU core and a physical CPU. Until now MS has licensed operating systems on the number of physical CPUs, not CPU cores:

Windows 95/98/ME only supported one CPU with a single core.

Windows NT 3.x Workstation, Windows NT 4 Workstation1, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, Windows Vista Business/Enterprise/Ultimate, Windows 7 Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate and Windows 8.x Pro all support two physical processors and an unlimited number of cores per CPU.

Windows XP Home, Windows Vista Home, Windows 7 Home and Windows 8.x (non-Pro) support one CPU with an unlimited number of cores.

If I remember right Windows XP MCE supported the same number of CPUs as XP Home.

Windows Server supports from 2 CPUs/unlimited cores to 128 CPUs/unlimited cores depending on version and edition. That will apparently change with Server 2016 where MS has now reverted to 'per core' licensing  :palm:

Don't know Windows 10 (urgh!) but I assume the CPU/core limits are the same as for Windows 8. For a desktop OS it's unlikely to change, though.


1 Windows NT 4 Workstation on a SGI Visual Workstation 540 supports four physical processors
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 04:55:12 pm by Wuerstchenhund »
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #166 on: March 22, 2016, 05:08:57 pm »
It's only nitpicking if...

No, it's nitpicking, period.

Windows 95/98/ME only supported one CPU with a single core.

Windows NT 3.x Workstation, Windows NT 4 Workstation1, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, Windows Vista Business/Enterprise/Ultimate, Windows 7 Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate and Windows 8.x Pro all support two physical processors and an unlimited number of cores per CPU.

Windows XP Home, Windows Vista Home, Windows 7 Home and Windows 8.x (non-Pro) support one CPU with an unlimited number of cores.

If I remember right Windows XP MCE supported the same number of CPUs as XP Home.

Windows Server supports from 2 CPUs/unlimited cores to 128 CPUs/unlimited cores depending on version and edition. That will apparently change with Server 2016 where MS has now reverted to 'per core' licensing  :palm:

Don't know Windows 10 (urgh!) but I assume the CPU/core limits are the same as for Windows 8. For a desktop OS it's unlikely to change, though.


1 Windows NT 4 Workstation on a SGI Visual Workstation 540 supports four physical processors

ie. It's possible to own a machine where not all the CPUs are used because the Microsoft license doesn't let you, and that yaying more money to Microsoft will magically "unlock" those CPUs (without needing to alter the hardware).
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 05:12:24 pm by Fungus »
 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1826
  • Country: ch
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #167 on: March 22, 2016, 05:19:42 pm »
The question I actually asked in my original post (which you neatly trimmed) was:
"The majority of CPUs out there are artificially limited. Should we be starting a class action lawsuit because we're all being "wronged"?"
I trimmed it because it was obviously irrelevant, we're NOT being "wronged".

The CPU manufacturer sells me a "locked" CPU. I bring it home and can promptly overclock (or "unlock") it for free perfectly legally.
The scope manufacturer sells me a scope with some memory disabled, I bring it home and can NOT unlock that memory for free as that would be illegal.

See the difference? That's why the PC example goes the exact other way you claim it does. If you take the CPU as reference there would be no issue hacking the scope.

It's possible to own a machine where not all the CPUs are used because the Microsoft license doesn't let you, and that yaying more money to Microsoft will magically "unlock" those CPUs (without needing to alter the hardware).
Again irrelevant, because such a machine DOES NOT come bundled with a version of Windows that limits it, while the scope does.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 05:22:24 pm by Kilrah »
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #168 on: March 22, 2016, 05:34:38 pm »
If you take the CPU as reference there would be no issue hacking the scope.

OK, there's no written law against overclocking at the moment, does that make it right?

What would you say if a such a law was passed tomorrow? Would you stop overclocking?

What about this?

http://wccftech.com/intel-forcing-ban-nonk-oc-feature-skylake-motherboards-bios-rolling/
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9488
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #169 on: March 22, 2016, 05:56:31 pm »
The scope manufacturer sells me a scope with some memory disabled, I bring it home and can NOT unlock that memory for free as that would be illegal.
if we are talking about rigol actually... where it is written that it is illegal to do so? afaik, from their site... it can be unlocked using the right "key", not the "purchased key", and the key is available in riglol for free... heck where you are going to purchase the key? legally?. afaics, rigol silence to this matter is not hurting them, and i can safely bet this is somewhat legal or condoned by them.

OK, there's no written law against overclocking at the moment, does that make it right?
in the sense if one can do or cannot do? it is right. in the sense of the cpu longevity? it is not.

What would you say if a such a law was passed tomorrow? Would you stop overclocking?
the rationale behind the "man made" law need to be considered. if its involving other's life, then he should. if not then its complicated. (actually i hate to type long text about this).
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #170 on: March 22, 2016, 06:02:53 pm »
What would you say if a such a law was passed tomorrow? Would you stop overclocking?
the rationale behind the "man made" law need to be considered. if its involving other's life, then he should. if not then its complicated. (actually i hate to type long text about this).

It's a "yes" or "no" answer.

Is Intel harmed by overclocking? Is Rigol harmed by hacking?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 07:33:12 pm by Fungus »
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2847
  • Country: gb
  • Only sparsely active but available via PM
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #171 on: March 22, 2016, 07:10:22 pm »
It's only nitpicking if...

No, it's nitpicking, period.

It is. Seriously, it is.

ie. It's possible to own a machine where not all the CPUs are used because the Microsoft license doesn't let you, and that yaying more money to Microsoft will magically "unlock" those CPUs (without needing to alter the hardware).

Yes, if you buy a dual processor workstation and try to use Windows 9x/ME or one of the Home (XP/Vista/W7) or non/Pro (Win8.x) editions on it, which would be plain stupid.

No, if you buy a standard PC with a single processor (no matter how many cores!) or build one yourself.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10482
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #172 on: March 22, 2016, 07:32:46 pm »
Yes, if you buy a dual processor workstation and try to use Windows 9x/ME or one of the Home (XP/Vista/W7) or non/Pro (Win8.x) editions on it, which would be plain stupid.

Nobody's asking if it would be sensible or not.

 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10892
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #173 on: March 22, 2016, 08:01:50 pm »
Buuuut nobody in their right mind would have shipped PC hardware with a version of Windows that limited usage of that hardware, as is with the scopes and is what people complain about. That's where the comparison ends, beyond that the 2 platforms are too different to compare.

Stop trying to avoid the issue: MS did limit the proportion of my hardware that could be used. You may wriggle and squirm, but MS did it.

As an irrelevant aside, what makes you think a company did ship Windows with the hardware? It was principally a linux box, with Windows on it for occasional use.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13798
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #174 on: March 22, 2016, 08:11:54 pm »
Buuuut nobody in their right mind would have shipped PC hardware with a version of Windows that limited usage of that hardware, as is with the scopes and is what people complain about. That's where the comparison ends, beyond that the 2 platforms are too different to compare.

Stop trying to avoid the issue: MS did limit the proportion of my hardware that could be used. You may wriggle and squirm, but MS did it.

As an irrelevant aside, what makes you think a company did ship Windows with the hardware? It was principally a linux box, with Windows on it for occasional use.
So what? There are plenty of other operating systems you can use to unlock your hardware's full functionality, which isn't the case with an oscilloscope. Microsoft didn't provide you with the hardware, only the software. If you bought them as a bundle, then it's the stupid seller's fault for providing inadequate software for the hardware. Install a new OS or complain to the seller and get a refund.


Another silly and completely invalid analogy.

By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.

Nitpicking the details to make the analogy invalid? Really?  :palm:

What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
There was absolutely no nitpicking whatsoever. They are totally different things.

The number of first class seats is physically limited. It is a finite resource. Irrespective of the cost or lack of thereof to the airline.

The number of users of a piece of software has no upper limit. It's just information and can be copied infinitely.

Analogies comparing software to physical space or material items are inherently flawed.

It's a "yes" or "no" answer.

Is Intel harmed by overclocking? Is Rigol harmed by hacking?
The answer is no. Intel benefits from overclocking and Rigol from firmware hacking.

And while we're on the subject of overclocking. Is it right to overclock a part, then sell it on? Rigol has done exactly that!
http://www.eevblog.com/2009/10/12/eevblog-37-rigol-ds1052e-oscilloscope-teardown/
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 08:20:30 pm by Hero999 »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf