Criteria for computer software - why software must be user-controlled

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

The software we need in order to run our computers and work with our images need to be user-controlled.

- Why?

Realistically, nothing and no situation is or can be permanent in a changeable and therefore changing world.

It is precisely because nothing is permanent, that we need strategies and solutions that are resilient and as reliable as practically possible. Dependency on software subscriptions and/or activations in order to run the software we need in order to access and work with images, or any kind of data, is manifestly unreliable and undermines resilience.

Some critically important points to be aware of:

- If a piece of software is automatically installed on a computer and cannot be copied, it cannot be backed up.

That is fundamentally unsafe, because what cannot be backed up can be lost at any time with no possibility of retrieval.

- If a piece of software is subscription-based, it is forever tied to the subscription service and its availability and existence in order to be usable. As soon as the user ceases to pay, the software becomes unusable.

That is very unwise, because the software subscription service is likely to be unavailable sooner or later.

- If a piece of software is cloud/net-based and therefore not run locally from the user's own computer, it will be useless and the whole computer will be useless as soon as the net connection is unavailable due to a wide range of possible technical, social, political or other reasons.

That is very unwise in a changing world. In a changing world, the software service will realistically be unavailable for one reason or another. When that happens, the unfortunate user who is using cloud-based software will have nothing more than a stupid box of hardware. S/he will be unable to do as much as to write a letter to grandma with such a stupid box.

There are no reasons why we should accept software that is subscription-based, cloud-based or is dependent on activation services for installation and use. On the contrary, we have every reason to reject cloud-based and subscription-based software and uncompromisingly demand copyable and user-controlled software that can be installed, de-installed and re-installed at any time on comparable hardware - and with no time limits.

In a changing world, resilience and independence from ties to the manufacturers of our tools is of great importance - because the changing and therefore basically unpredictable nature of the world means that we need resilient strategies and solutions. For this reason, user-controlled computers and software is important and even more important when the presence of the internet gives us the false and dangerous illusion of permanent ubiquitousness and permanent availability. The sensible conclusion has to be that we need to demand user-controlled software and computers that are administered locally. It means that users must have the necessary knowledge, but it also means optimum reliability and long-term safety in a changing world. Which is something we should all strive to maintain.

Computer software, both operating systems and applications, therefore needs to fulfill the following criteria:

1. It must be installed on and subsequently run from the user's computer.

2. It must be capable of being installed, de-installed, and re-installed on compatible hardware without any need for activations, subscriptions or other forms of ties.

3. It must be capable of being copied, backed up and whenever needed migrated to a new storage medium of the user's choice. This way, it will be functional as long as there is compatible hardware to install it on.

[CS]

"It must" this, and "it must" that? And what if it doesn't?

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

"It must" this, and "it must" that? And what if it doesn't?

If a piece of software, or any other kind of data, cannot be accessed, copied and backed up, or re-installed without subscriptions or activations, then said data or software cannot.

That is one possibility.

The other possibility is that the software or other kind of data - the principle applies to all kinds of digital information and data - can be copied and backed up, accessed and re-installed and used indefinitely on compatible hardware with no time limits or other restrictions or ties.

Both are technically possible.

It is up to you and me to decide what is preferable.

[CS]

If a piece of software, or any other kind of data, cannot be accessed, copied and backed up, or re-installed without subscriptions or activations, then said data or software cannot.

That is one possibility.

The other possibility is that the software or other kind of data - the principle applies to all kinds of digital information and data - can be copied and backed up, accessed and re-installed and used indefinitely on compatible hardware with no time limits or other restrictions or ties.

Both are technically possible.

It is up to you and me to decide what is preferable.

If you want Photoshop Elements, or other alternatives, they're available. As for you making demands of software vendors, good luck. First, you don't own the software, you own a (revokable) license to it, and it comes with restrictions. Further, there is copyright law to support that.

I'm always amazed at internet business advice from people that have never run said businesses. Mike G said it perfectly, if you don't like the deal then simply ignore it. In case you're interested, I've been a subscriber since day one, and I have zero regrets.

[Frank Fremerey]

you have to visit the tap to get your water?

bad for you. lots of people have to go to work every morning to provide fresh clean water under pressure in your tap.

Better buy your own farm with your own well and do it yourself, right???

Did you think about Electricity? How many people have to work in shifts every day to provide your electricity?

food? streets? cars? petroleum?

We could organize our life in a resilient way, but computers and software are only achievable in a conglomerate highly dependent complex societal context. Chipdesign? Foundries? Complex global logistics?

To make a long story short: your comment is fart not art! (impolite)

literature: Ben Falk "The resilient farm and homestead"

http://www.wholesystemsdesign.com/resilient-farm-homestead-book/

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It should be possible to disagree even in more polite terms.

[Frank Fremerey]

It should be possible to disagree even in more polite terms.

Yes, sorry to be so straight. No harm intended.

[David H. Hartman]

Mike G said it perfectly, if you don't like the deal then simply ignore it.

Easy to say, not so easy to do when Capitalism is being destroyed by the "Divine Right of Multinational Corporations" who destroy their competitors or Google them up.

<Rant>

Humans have a troupe instinct and they fight corp to corp, castle to castle, city to city, church to church, nation to nation and Mick Jagger complained that...

Ev'rywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy
'Cause summer's here and the time is right for fighting in the street, boy
But what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in sleepy London town
There's just no place for a street fighting man
No

Homo sapiens are the most invasive and destructive species this rock has ever seen and the only hope is for a major asteroid strike in 2030.

Dave Hartman who received a summons and is being sued because he can't afford a stinking $72.00 to continue a CC pay off plan and hopes they can't squeeze blood from a turnip but is afraid they will try.

Nikon Gear: I would have renewed my support here but month by month I can't afford the $20.00 or so.

Had I been "Taken Up Into the Clouds to be with Adobe it would not have been Forevermore." Several months ago I wouldn't have had the money to pay the subscription.

Hot Tip: never make friends with a semi-quadriplegic woman who sews a church run university.

</end rant>

[Frank Fremerey]

pity to hear you are doing not so well, David. pn me what is up, maybe I can help

[Les Olson]

As for you making demands of software vendors, good luck. First, you don't own the software, you own a (revokable) license to it, and it comes with restrictions. Further, there is copyright law to support that.

And who makes the law?  Do we live in a democracy or not?  Sorry, foolish question, no need to answer.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

If you want Photoshop Elements, or other alternatives, they're available. As for you making demands of software vendors, good luck. First, you don't own the software, you own a (revokable) license to it, and it comes with restrictions. Further, there is copyright law to support that.

I'm always amazed at internet business advice from people that have never run said businesses. Mike G said it perfectly, if you don't like the deal then simply ignore it. In case you're interested, I've been a subscriber since day one, and I have zero regrets.

It would seem that the above response would lead to some comments as well as questions.

1. First I politely and curiously ask: Are you under the impression that there are people here who are unaware that when you pay for software, then you acquire a license and that you do not buy the copyright?

2. What is the relevance of the fact that a licensee does not own the software? Does this fact, which is a matter of course, obviate the need for a user to control the software by way of being able to copy, install and run it independent from the manufacturer?

3. We are talking about a practical consideration. How is it that such an entirely practical consideration is met with the response "I'm always amazed at internet business advice from people that have never run said businesses"? It is a surprise to meet such a response, since not a single piece of business advice has been given so far.

4. What is preferable:

- A computer filled with an operating system and other software that needs to be activated or which must be subscribed to from a software service in order to be used?

- A computer where all software can be backed up on the user's own private storage media, in order to be installed and re-installed whenever the user needs and wants a new installation, and then used indefinitely with no ties to any manufacturer or any software service?

That is the practical consideration, pure and simple. It should be possible to relate to the questions without unnecessary invective or allusions to non-existent business advice.

5. Before the year 2000, neither MS Windows nor Adobe Photoshop was activation-crippled. That means, the software could be installed at any time on compatible hardware with no ties to the manufacturer. Further, the software could be used with no time limits and no need for subscriptions. To my knowledge, these companies did business back then as they do today.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

you have to visit the tap to get your water?

bad for you. lots of people have to go to work every morning to provide fresh clean water under pressure in your tap.

Better buy your own farm with your own well and do it yourself, right???

Did you think about Electricity? How many people have to work in shifts every day to provide your electricity?

food? streets? cars? petroleum?

We could organize our life in a resilient way, but computers and software are only achievable in a conglomerate highly dependent complex societal context. Chipdesign? Foundries? Complex global logistics?

To make a long story short: your comment is fart not art! (impolite)

Sad to say as it is, but it is a bit hard to understand the point you try to make. Particularly so, when the reasoning which is being commented on is for no apparent reason depicted as something that originates from where excretion occurs.

The difficulty lies in the fact that none of the above statements touch, not even tangentially, upon the original topic under discussion.

So let us ask:

How do the above series of statements ending with the perhaps a little surprising allusion pertain to the question of whether or not a computer with user-controlled software that is stored locally and run independent from any manufacturer with no time limit is functionally preferable to a "dumb box" which requires ties in the form of activations and subscriptions in order to be of any use?

Bear in mind that the question originally posed relates to the implications of being forced to activate or subscribe to our daily working tools. Therefore, we should stick to that topic if we want to be serious.

This is not about business or not business. Business does not require total control over customers. To imply otherwise is mistaken.

There was no product activation, no software subscription required for acquisition and use of our normal operating systems and applications in the year 2000. It was when Microsoft and Adobe had their customers by the nose, by a near monopoly on their areas, that they felt they could impose Product Activation on their customers without risk of losing them as customers. Because an insufficient number of customers protested by refusal to buy licenses on such terms, "certain companies" understood that they could go further - eventually with cloud-based software. Give up one inch, and soon you will have to give up a thousand miles. That is what customers did. Fortunately, it is always possible to make different choices, it only takes effort.

By the way, decentralized settlements, decentralized production units with local provisions and resiliency are in many cases perfectly feasible and in general vastly more robust than centralized solutions. This is even more the case today, when technology in fact makes many forms of decentralized solutions easier than before.

It is extremely difficult to escape the conclusion that a user-controlled computer is far more resilient, and gives its user far more empowerment, than a computer where all software needs activations or subscriptions in order to work.

[CS]

It would seem that the above response would lead to some comments as well as questions.

1. First I politely and curiously ask: Are you under the impression that there are people here who are unaware that when you pay for software, then you acquire a license and that you do not buy the copyright?

1a. That is the impression that I get from your remarks about making demands of software vendors. On what basis, or authority, do you make demands of the legal owners of the software?

2. What is the relevance of the fact that a licensee does not own the software? Does this fact, which is a matter of course, obviate the need for a user to control the software by way of being able to copy, install and run it independent from the manufacturer?

Need? Under that impression you could walk into a bank and tell then that you need to congtrol their money. Then they might need to call the police.

3. We are talking about a practical consideration. How is it that such an entirely practical consideration is met with the response "I'm always amazed at internet business advice from people that have never run said businesses"? It is a surprise to meet such a response, since not a single piece of business advice has been given so far.

Do you really think any sane vendor is going to capitulate to your demands?

4. What is preferable:

REALITY!

- A computer filled with an operating system and other software that needs to be activated or which must be subscribed to from a software service in order to be used?

- A computer where all software can be backed up on the user's own private storage media, in order to be installed and re-installed whenever the user needs and wants a new installation, and then used indefinitely with no ties to any manufacturer or any software service?

That is the practical consideration, pure and simple. It should be possible to answer the questions without unnecessary invective or allusions to non-existent business advice.





You're living in a dream, Wake Up!

5. Before the year 2000, neither MS Windows nor Adobe Photoshop was activation-crippled. That means, the software could be installed at any time on compatible hardware with no ties to the manufacturer. Further, the software could be used with no time limits and no need for subscriptions. To my knowledge, these companies did business back then as they to today.

Registration was voluntary, activation was mandatory. I went through a particularly extensive ordeal with Adobe over activation  numbers with Ps 7 after a hard drive died on one of my machines. No activation, no worky! I finally got it resolved, but don't tell me that activation wasn't required, they gave me a new number, good for one activation! Thankfully, I didn't need any more.

[Ann]

Originally you were only allowed to install Adobe's software on a single machine but later that was extended to two machines although you couldn't use both simultaneously. And registration had to be made and the S/N typed in before you could install the software.

The software licences probably cost the lawful User so much because so many people stole the software and ran pirated editions.
 
(I read somewhere that it was reckoned that piracy had become so bad that perhaps 70% of the copies of Photoshop that were in use world-wide were pirated versions.)

I imagine that the Subscription Business Model has been quite effective in stopping the theft and I am delighted that Adobe have adopted it — and the numerous other Developers who are doing the same thing as well — because the revenue is then available for future development and is also keeping subscriptions at very reasonable level.

People who were installing single-user software on multiple machines were not only cheating Adobe and their employees, they were also cheating all those of us who purchased our Licences lawfully.

[pluton]

That the main functionality of the software(the Develop module) is disabled when the money stops flowing to Adobe..or when Adobe thinks that the money has stopped flowing... is the one fact about it that I haven't been able to rationalize yet.