Date: 2 Jul 90 01:39:26 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Followup-To: alt.bbs
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 210

A few weeks ago, I posted an article to alt.bbs outlining some of the
problems I've had in getting my SYSOP copy of DSZ, Omen Technologies'
Zmodem/Ymodem-g protocol driver. At that time, I asked for emailed
replies, and said I'd summarize. Here's the summary, as promised, and
I'm sending a cc to Chuck Forsberg himself. Thanks to all who helped.

[email protected] (Homeless hacker) writes:

>My sysop registration took almost 4 months to come through.

> Chuck's package is basically useless unless "registered", since
>registration is the only way to legally enable most of the useful
>features of the program. Registration costs the normal user $20.00.
>I got so sick of waiting, and of being forced to adhere to the
>registration requirements (software cop, etc.) that when I finally got my
>number, I didn't bother to intall it. My BBS (WWIV 4.10) has been using
>DSZ, unregistered, for 2 years without a hitch.

[email protected] writes:

>Stick it to him. I have been offended by forsberg's attitude for years.
>He thinks the world revolves around him and that all users are guilty of
>stealing his software. His manuals and licensing documents are shining
>examples of poor customer relations, at best. Somebody outght to write
>a better `dsz' and put him out of business.

"Tiny Bubbles..." writes:

>Your observations are not surprising. Forsberg is not what you call a
>"people person," or such is the indication I get from the tone of his
>documentation files and reactions, similar to yours, from other places
>on the national net.

>Also, anyone with a BBS registration mysteriously saw
>big chunks of their filesystems disappear one fateful night early last
>year. Forsberg has officially blamed it on a virus, but our board is
>virus-free and we obtained our copy of DSZ right from Omen's BBS.


>My personal view is that he embedded a self-destruct mechanism for BBS
>registrations which was supposed to delete only a few files (itself, I
>would imagine), and that it went haywire and cleared the whole directory.
>Thus, the "omigod, a VIRUS" story. Also, this oddity happened ONLY to
>BBS registrations... and one series of actual paid registrations, ours
>included, which again looks like plain ol' sloppy programming.

[*shiver*...this is probably the scariest reply I received, anyone know
if there's any truth to it? --Scott]

[email protected] (Bob Mosley III) writes:

> 1) Chuck Forsberg takes WAY too long to send out sysop registered
> copies. 4-6 weeks for delivery is not unacceptable, but I've heard
> horror stories of 4-5 MONTHS. When queried about this, Forsberg has
> in all cases responded along the lines of those reported previously.
> He has been apathetical, laxidasical, and even downright rude to those
> inquiring about the status of their PUTSNP key.

> 2) Forsberg is requiring sysops to register with strings attatched. While
> pushing the latest Zmodem/DSZ package is satisfactory with me, pushing
> that piece of shit he calls Zcomm would be an insult not only to my users,
> but to my own self esteem. And then there's the "Secret Society of DSZ
> Pirate Watchers" that Forsberg forces you to join. On one of the local
> Fido echos, we had a sysop who for weeks went on and on about how patches
> and deprotects were tools of pirates and devil-worshippers and
whathaveyous,
> and every post he would sign off with Forsberg's little "Pledge of
> Allegiance", promising to turn in anyone he caught pirating DSZ, or
> any sysop running an unregistered version of DSZ. Of course, you can
> guess where everyone told him to go, eh? To sum it up, there's too many
> strings attached for any normal independent sysop to even consider
> registering DSZ. Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down
> and bending over.

> ...by turning DSZ into crippleware with the directory pathing exclusion,
> Forsberg has quickly moved from innovative genius to greedy snot. NO OTHER
> PROTOCOL requires registration before being allowed to tell it where
> you want files placed. Could you imagine where file transfers would be
> today if Ward Christiansen had decided to release his original version
> of what became XMODEM with such restrictions?

> In short, ol' Chuckie should have taken a lesson
> from SEA - if you act like an asshole in the shareware industry, the
> users will drop you for the underdog in a split second.

[email protected] (Irving Wolfe) writes:

> As you said, in a weak moment you accepted the devil's pact. Why should
> anyone else think you were treated unfairly if the devil gives you a few
rude

> surprises? Why should you expect a man who asked you to agree in writing
tha
t
> you'd lie to your friends to be telling you the truth?

[email protected] (Jeff Wolfe) writes:

> As a BBS sysop, I sent in my BBS registration about a month after I
> started using DSZ. I waited for about 2 months, and never got the BBS reg.
> After a Year, I started to feel guilty, so I sent my $20 in to Omen. It
took
> them 3 weeks to cash the check, but I got the DSZ disks about a week after
th
e
> check was cashed. A week *AFTER* I got the Paid for disks, another mailer
> appeared with my BBS registration (almost 1 year later!)..

[email protected] (Joe College) writes:

> The solution to this problem is not to use DSZ. Telix is one very good comm
> program that I know of that supports Zmodem. However, while the solution
may
be
> easy for BBS _users_ , it may be different for people who _run_ them. I
don't

> know if there are any other Zmodem protocols. I may have seen one or two...

"Jonathan R. Herr" writes:

> Thanks for the warning! I was going to call his BBS but now I won't.

tim bowden writes:

> I have registered as a sysop with Omen, and I had the predictably long
> wait for the disks to arrive in the mail. They did. I determined not
> to go through the trouble to keep up with new releases in the same
> manner, because it was too ponderous a procedure when I could just
> use a copy a user uploaded of the new edition without waiting six
> months. I have the satisfaction of knowing I attempted to play the
> game right, and the assumption Omen is quite content with how it goes.

> I found the documentation forbidding, by the way, and had to access Omen
> for clarification on flow control. They apparently publish a long list
> of answers you can download, and then look for your question in there.
> At least it solved the problem, but it makes one reluctant to consult
> with them more than is absolutely necessary, which is I suppose the
> intent.

"Mark J. Bailey" writes:

>I had some difficulty with "the
>secretary" (whom I suspect may have been his wife (hmmmmm ???!) back in
>February. I am not a SYSOP, but had a client interested in the Unix YAM.

[LONG story about how he tried to get some documentation
from Chuck and got the typical brushoff - deleted in the
interest of brevity, avail. on request]

> I don't see postings from him much lately. Also, from what you described
> about his rude comment to you on the phone (I have been in similar
situations

> (in person) myself and am quite familiar with the "Huh?" response of
> disbelief to what I was just party to!), I was a bit shocked that that was
> his attitude. Also a bit angerred. It really bothers me when people
> [parenthetical comment withheld by request] produce things like DSZ, and
> (as you say) wave it in front of our faces and make great claims and then
> don't deliver "people" service for shit. The case with FSUUCP is that
> after a year, he has yet to document it. He also made several pre-release
> announcements since last fall, and only delivered at the end of May (and it
> still doesn't work when talking to a HDB uucp node). I agree with 101%