Rick,
Like your style
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 3, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Rick Fochtman wrote:
> ---:
>
>> Zman,
>> In that case a .45 automatic and a big dog comes in handy, lol , sorry just
>> couldn't resist..
---:
Zman,
In that case a .45 automatic and a big dog comes in handy, lol , sorry just
couldn't resist..
Regards,
Scott
-
Scott Ford wrote: "Been on the phone with a certain ISP and had to
tell them how to shoot the problem." I worked for a company whose
business involved processing records of pharmaceutical sales. We had
processing centers in diverse locations which entailed a lot of data
transmission. The
Zman,
In that case a .45 automatic and a big dog comes in handy, lol , sorry just
couldn't resist..
Regards,
Scott
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:17 PM, zMan wrote:
> Yes. I know folks who live near prisons: they leave cars unlocked with
> keys in them, on the theory that if someone b
Yes. I know folks who live near prisons: they leave cars unlocked with
keys in them, on the theory that if someone breaks out, they'd rather
they take the car and go than come into the house...
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Bill Fairchild
wrote:
> I have had two different cars of mine broken i
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: SV: cpu / machine identification
Seems sort of counter-intuitive. :)
Brian
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:35:21 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
>> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
>> Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] F
Brian,
I am used to that type of support structure. I have noticed a more of a
reliance on the vendor for a lot more than the actual product the support.
Regards,
Scott
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:11 AM, Brian Westerman
wrote:
> I agree,
>
> We make sure that when we say we ar
I agree,
We make sure that when we say we are staffed, that we mean on site at one of
our 3 branches, not by some company that just answers the phone. The way we
handle it in times when no one is around is that the support line phone system
will automatically page someone after 5 minutes if no
John,
Me either , I would have thought the vendor had the tools. Sounds like they
want u to pay to have it done.
Regards,
Scott ford
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 1, 2012, at 9:01 PM, John McKown wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-01-01 at 12:23 -0500, Scott Ford wrote:
>> Brian,
>> Yep the India support get
:
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu,
Date:
01/01/2012 17:53
Subject:
Re: cpu / machine identification
Sent by:
IBM Mainframe Discussion List
I was involved in an audit of a VERY large outsourcer on behalf
of a VERY large software vendor, some time ago.
The only data required for the audit was the site's SMF da
DBANK
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] För
> Brian Westerman
> Skickat: den 31 december 2011 01:08
> Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Ämne: Re: SV: cpu / machine identification
>
> Seems sort of counter-intuitive. :)
&
On Sun, 2012-01-01 at 12:23 -0500, Scott Ford wrote:
> Brian,
> Yep the India support get back to you doesn't set well with me as a vendor.
> We get back to our customers ASAP. Also want to add, don't expect the
> Support to know anything. Been on the phone with a certain ISP and had
> to tell them
On 1/1/2012 6:37 AM, Mike Schwab wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Edward Jaffe
wrote:
This checking by various products leads to quite a bit of redundancy. A
centralized approach to license compliance would seem superior--reasoning
that led to the creation of the 'IBM License Manager f
age-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 9:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: cpu / machine identification
In <9693770902631563.wa.brianwestermansyzygyinc@bama.ua.edu>, on
12/31/20
Brian,
Yep the India support get back to you doesn't set well with me as a vendor.
We get back to our customers ASAP. Also want to add, don't expect the Support
to know anything. Been on the phone with a certain ISP and had to tell them how
to shoot the problem.
Regards,
Scott
Sent from my iPad
In <9693770902631563.wa.brianwestermansyzygyinc@bama.ua.edu>, on
12/31/2011
at 06:51 PM, Brian Westerman said:
>Sorry Shmuel, I mind works on a different level than my fingers
>sometimes. I apologize for the mistake on your name.
That's why I try to remember to cut and paste rather than
In <9920027903334789.wa.brianwestermansyzygyinc@bama.ua.edu>, on
12/31/2011
at 06:43 PM, Brian Westerman said:
>So the question should be, who should bear the cost of that? The
>vendor, who has no control over the choices,
The vendor *does* have control. Specifically, the vendor controls
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Edward Jaffe
wrote:
>
> Many years ago, one of our largest customers, with a complex and
> ever-changing configuration, requested that we perform robust and exhaustive
> checking of the execution environment in which (E)JES executes. This
> checking includes CPU s
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:16:17 -0800 Edward Jaffe wrote:
> --reasoning that led to the creation of the 'IBM License
> Manager for z/OS' debacle.
Wash your mouth out fella ;-)
Well that's just ruined a potentially wonderful nascent year.
Shane ...
---
On 12/27/2011 5:55 AM, Mark Zelden wrote:
In my own personal experience as a sysprog, I know some of the
same things have happened unintentionally. Consolidations, moving
LPARs around, creating / cloning new LPARs can lead to this and
when the software doesn't check it's easy for the "techies"
A while back (years) as part of an install we asked for a phone link
for the "dial-home" on the machine.
No - and take the dialing mechanism out of the machine.
Say what ???.
Being a new customer site (a bank), they were accommodated. Later on
they needed factory support for a hardware issue. The
Uh. And then of course you'll find that your request (a) doesn't work
because it's blocked and (b) triggers IDS alarms, which you then get
to explain. Not something I'd recommend trying.
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Brian Westerman
wrote:
> Actually, we had thought of putting in a module to r
t;
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:55:37 -0500, Robert A. Rosenberg
>> wrote:
>>
>>>At 20:42 -0600 on 12/29/2011, Brian Westerman wrote about Re: cpu /
>>>machine identification:
>>>
>>>>We have DR support in our software, but I was under the impression
Apparently we seem to be getting closer and closer to that.
Brian
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:36:52 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
wrote:
>In
>,
>on 12/29/2011
> at 11:11 PM, Mike Schwab said:
>
>>Would some of the macro worms be possible to infect some Linux
>>products with macros on x86 and x
I 100% agree. Having been a systems programmer for most of my life, I'm used
to the 24x7 mode of support. A lot of vendors are not. Or even worse, have a
support number in India that will "page" someone, to get back to you.
Brian
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:57:44 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
; wrote:
>
>>At 20:42 -0600 on 12/29/2011, Brian Westerman wrote about Re: cpu /
>>machine identification:
>>
>>>We have DR support in our software, but I was under the impression
>>>that most of the DR sites were running the OS under VM and they
>>&g
sitting on the fence cheering for blood:).
Brian
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:55:37 -0500, Robert A. Rosenberg
wrote:
>At 20:42 -0600 on 12/29/2011, Brian Westerman wrote about Re: cpu /
>machine identification:
>
>>We have DR support in our software, but I was under the impress
Sorry Shmuel, I mind works on a different level than my fingers sometimes. I
apologize for the mistake on your name.
I'm still not too sure that there is a way to conduct an audit that would
satisfy the vendor, that the site would agree to. I don't think disrupting a
site is what the vendor w
You may have a point, but our view is that good software shouldn't have to cost
an arm and a leg to be good. Mainly we are a consulting firm, and software
started as a "sideline", but once you get over a couple hundred clients, you
have to devote more time and people resources to it, so now it'
In <9482792948874353.wa.brianwestermansyzygyinc@bama.ua.edu>, on
12/29/2011
at 08:29 PM, Brian Westerman said:
>The one thing I do know is that vendors have the right to protect
>their software and as long as it's reasonable protection, I don't see
>why a site would complain about it.
Wha
In <0713029417803027.wa.brianwestermansyzygyinc@bama.ua.edu>, on
12/29/2011
at 08:42 PM, Brian Westerman said:
>I suppose their are sites that do not run the DR under VM, but don't
>the sites who don't run under VM know the serial number ahead of
>time, and wouldn't it be already built int
In
,
on 12/29/2011
at 11:11 PM, Mike Schwab said:
>Would some of the macro worms be possible to infect some Linux
>products with macros on x86 and x64 and S390x?
That's a concern for workstations, but who runs, e.g., Firefox,
OpenOffice on z?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and J
In <8724193196442157.wa.brianwestermansyzygyinc@bama.ua.edu>, on
12/29/2011
at 08:03 PM, Brian Westerman said:
>I'm sorry Schmuel,
That's Shmuel!
>giving a vendor access to their site
There's a difference between permitting an audit and allowing
unrestricted access. I've certainly been
At 20:42 -0600 on 12/29/2011, Brian Westerman wrote about Re: cpu /
machine identification:
We have DR support in our software, but I was under the impression
that most of the DR sites were running the OS under VM and they
simulated the serial anyway.
I suppose their are sites that do not
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Brian Westerman
>
> We have DR support in our software, but I was under the impression
that most of the DR sites were
> running the OS under VM and they simulated the serial anyway.
>
> I suppose their are sites that
Okay,
Snipping the other stuff makes sense, but I'll keep my reply on top. I hate
trying to skip through only to find that the person interspersed the comments.
Brian
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:48:55 -0600, Tom Marchant
wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:29:02 -0600, Brian Westerman wrote:
>
>>I fo
I think I know that guy. He must work at just about every mainframe site in
the world. :)
Brian
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:14:13 -0600, John McKown wrote:
>On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 20:32 -0600, Brian Westerman wrote:
>> I didn't realize that a employee can bind the site, but I can see where that
>
gt; Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>> Ämne: Re: cpu / machine identification
>>
>...
>> I'm sure you lock your car, why do that if you have the only key? :)
>>
>> Brian
>
>I know of people that don't lock their cars - to avo
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:29:02 -0600, Brian Westerman wrote:
>I found out that the quote is not on by default (the hard way :))
>and also that I have to click on it BEFORE I enter any data.
I'm glad that you've figured out how to quote the message that
you are replying to. Now, I'd like to ask y
On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:11 PM, zMan wrote:
OK, I gotta ask -- what's the problem you're trying to solve? You
don't trust your customers? In over a quarter century in the mainframe
software business, I've come across ONE customer running software on
an unlicensed box, and it was an oversight -- and
Sam:
From some experience. We were constantly adding/changing cpu's over
just a two year period I remember going through at least 15 changes
and it could have been more. From past experience PLEASE allow some
amount of time (execution wise) if the serial number(s) do not agree.
We would g
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:14 PM, John McKown wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 20:32 -0600, Brian Westerman wrote:
>> I didn't realize that a employee can bind the site, but I can see where that
>> might actually be the case.
>>
>> I can imagine what would happen to a site like IBM in Dallas, should
Depends on what they want to do. HIPAA is a big deal in my shop. If they
just want SMF data, I normally run the job to create the dataset for
them and send it to them. No big deal about that. If they want a
"sysprog" level access (which has never happened), well, I'll do what
I'm told. But if it we
time - without the need for temporary keys or extra stress.
Linda
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Westerman"
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 6:42:29 PM
Subject: Re: cpu / machine identification
We have DR support in our software, but I
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 21:08 -0600, John McKown wrote:
> Depends on what they want to do. HIPAA is a big deal in my shop. If they
> just want SMF data, I normally run the job to create the dataset for
> them and send it to them. No big deal about that. If they want a
> "sysprog" level access (which
We do our DR under z/VM. But we don't ask that the serial number be
altered. Unless otherwise specified in the VM guest definition, the CPU
serial number presented to z/OS is the hardware CPUID.
IIRC, you can tell z/VM to emulate the serial number, but not the
machine type. I.e. if you run on a z9
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 20:32 -0600, Brian Westerman wrote:
> I didn't realize that a employee can bind the site, but I can see where that
> might actually be the case.
>
> I can imagine what would happen to a site like IBM in Dallas, should
> Microsoft or Corel say, "we're coming on Tuesday to che
We have DR support in our software, but I was under the impression that most
of the DR sites were running the OS under VM and they simulated the serial
anyway.
I suppose their are sites that do not run the DR under VM, but don't the sites
who don't run under VM know the serial number ahead of
I didn't realize that a employee can bind the site, but I can see where that
might actually be the case.
I can imagine what would happen to a site like IBM in Dallas, should Microsoft
or Corel say, "we're coming on Tuesday to check every one of your machines".
That would be very interesting.
ex
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
>Brian Westerman
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:02 PM
>To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>Subject: Re: cpu / machine identification
>
>That works for a site license
I'm sorry Schmuel, normally I agree with your point on things, but I really
have to disagree here. It's not like I have no experience with other sites, we
have hundreds of clients, and I have been to well over 80% of them in person,
and I can state without much worry that the percentages would
Another test,
Okay, it appears that I have to click on the quote on the bottom right BEFORE I
type anything here, so now I think I have it right. Is there a way to turn on
Quoting as a default?
Brian
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:49 -0600, Brian Westerman
wrote:
>Sorry about that, I was sure t
This is a test to see if I am getting the quote by pressing the quote button at
the bottom right
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAI
This is a test to see if the quote button on the bottom right is working.
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Sorry about that, I was sure that the original messages were appended, but I am
obviously wrong. I think I probably just clicked on the send message without
pressing the quote first.
Sorry again,
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscri
ZMan I am pretty well versed in pc/unix/mf and learning Appleseed...
Btw I wasn't a fan of CPU/serials because DR was such a pita without new
product patches,etc for new CPUs..
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 29, 2011, at 2:40 PM, zMan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Scott Ford wrote:
>>
On 28 December 2011 20:58, Brian Westerman
wrote:
> I don't mean to be flippant, but I seriously almost spit my diet coke all
> over my screen when I read the previous reply about allowing the software
> company to audit their system. :)
>
> I really don't think any site would readily agree to h
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Scott Ford wrote:
> As A vendor I understand the CPU/serial situation but one has to consider the
> less than honest customers and 'yes' I have experience that also
>
> Sent from my iPad
...points to the liabilities of communicating using mobile devices? :-)
--
would be much easier
> to leave the comment you are replying to in your reply.
>
> Not trying to be flippant, mind you. :-)
>
> Rex
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
> Of Brian Westerman
>
ember 28, 2011 8:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: cpu / machine identification
That works for a site license and I agree with it for that type of license, but
what about sites that purchase a single processor license and have 4
processors, or a systems programmer that decides that he can
In <7026723933836234.wa.brianwestermansyzygyinc@bama.ua.edu>, on
12/28/2011
at 07:58 PM, Brian Westerman said:
>I really don't think any site would readily agree to have their site
>"audited" by a software company for compliance.
Why not?
>After the silence, the sale would disappear. :)
> I know of people that don't lock their cars ...
I never lock mine, and leave the windows down a few inches.
My German Shepherd needs fresh air in this climate. Anyone stupid
enough to put their hand in deserves all they get. The mutt is friendly
but slightly territorial.
Never had anything nicke
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] För
> Brian Westerman
> Skickat: den 29 december 2011 03:10
> Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Ämne: Re: cpu / machine identification
>
...
> I'm sure you lock your
At 20:10 -0600 on 12/28/2011, Brian Westerman wrote about Re: cpu /
machine identification:
That's a good point, our code does put out the message at startup
about the site it's licensed to. But if someone was going to run it
purposely and not pay, zapping the one instance of the n
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:51:42 -0500 zMan wrote:
> Without any quoting, it's hard to tell what you're replying to...not
> trying to restart the quoting wars, but *some* reference is useful.
Absolutely agree. Normally I like to read Brians opinions, but those
last few just got unilaterally delete
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Brian Westerman
wrote:
> That works for a site license and I agree with it for that type of license,
> but what about sites that purchase a single processor license and have 4
> processors, or a systems programmer that decides that he can fix his
> "friends" pro
That works for a site license and I agree with it for that type of license, but
what about sites that purchase a single processor license and have 4
processors, or a systems programmer that decides that he can fix his "friends"
problem by sending a copy of the code to them, or the one that decid
That's a good point, our code does put out the message at startup about the
site it's licensed to. But if someone was going to run it purposely and not
pay, zapping the one instance of the name is not as hard as changing every page
of a 300 page book.
The licensing scheme isn't to make life ha
We have our products tell how long they are licensed for (how much time is
left) on each startup. When it gets within 45 days we make it highlighted (but
still rolls off the screen), then at 15 days it stays on the screen. Then when
it expires, we still have a "grace" period, that varies with
I don't mean to be flippant, but I seriously almost spit my diet coke all over
my screen when I read the previous reply about allowing the software company to
audit their system. :)
I really don't think any site would readily agree to have their site "audited"
by a software company for complian
In
,
on 12/26/2011
at 11:22 AM, Sam Siegel said:
>Please feel free to treat this as an open ended question related to
>licensing mechanism and provided any related advice and tips based on
>experience.
Whatever mechanism you use should take into account that the user
might have to run at a DR
Dongle me this Imperial Leader...
In a message dated 12/27/2011 3:03:49 P.M. Central Standard Time,
m...@mzelden.com writes:
Oh, the stories I could tell
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructio
This does raise the issue of WIBNI there was some way for an installation
to name a machine? When I refer to a customer machine - because of what I
get from SMF / RMF it's usually Plant/Serial as "xx-x". Most of my
customers have other names for their machines.
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer
All - Thanks for the huge response both on-list and off-list. I've gotten
both business and technical details. Exactly the type of information that
I was looking for.
THANKS AGAIN!
I'm especially happy to see that the signal-to-noise ratio is extremely
high!
I'm post some follow up question af
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:14:47 -0800, Skip Robinson
wrote:
>Software 'keys' are a huge PITA for reasons not so far mentioned.
>
>-- In larger shops, software contracts are often managed exclusively by
>bean-counter types far removed from the sysprogs who have to implement the
>keys. When a product
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Scott
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 1:21 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: cpu / machine identification
>
> Sam
>
> I would suggest
Behalf Of
Sam Siegel
Sent: 26 December 2011 21:20
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: cpu / machine identification
zMan - Thanks for the reply. It is a new product - No customers yet.
I would like enough licensing to keep honest people honest and an operationally
oriented reminder for the
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
From: zMan
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: 12/27/2011 10:43 AM
Subject:Re: cpu / machine identification
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Mark Zelden wrote:
> Obviously the point of view of someone w
I'm a customer, with many products requiring CPU codes and other
software based licensing schemes, and they are a PITA.
* Every vendor does it differently.
* Detailed documentation needs to be written and maintained for both
DR situations and CPU push/pull activities.
* Whenever we
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Mark Zelden wrote:
> Obviously the point of view of someone who doesn't make a living by
> selling their software.
Au contraire, I sure do make my living selling software. My point is
that in my experience, the cost of fighting the CPUID battle isn't
worth it. The
Long ago I had a phone call from India (proves how long ago this was!) for
technical support, and it was a one line change I gave
over the phone, saying "put this change in and let me know if there's a problem
in the morning". He replied "we won't know until
Saturday, that's when we run SAS jobs
On 12/27/2011 07:55 AM, Mark Zelden wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:11:02 -0500, zMan wrote:
OK, I gotta ask -- what's the problem you're trying to solve? You
don't trust your customers? In over a quarter century in the mainframe
software business, I've come across ONE customer running software
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:11:02 -0500, zMan wrote:
>
>OK, I gotta ask -- what's the problem you're trying to solve? You
>don't trust your customers? In over a quarter century in the mainframe
>software business, I've come across ONE customer running software on
>an unlicensed box, and it was an over
If you use CPUID and get the value that varies by LPAR, be sure to
exclude from validation the digit that is LPAR-dependent - having
different authentication codes for a PROD vs. TEST LPAR means there is
no way to test an authentication code without going live; and I second
the need to support
For our system, we have the need to create UUIDs, which contain in the
right part a twelve
byte hex number which identifies the machine uniquely world-wide (at
least, that's the idea).
The left part is a (kind of) inverted timestamp.
We do this using some information from CSRSI and the LPAR num
zMan - Thanks for the reply. It is a new product - No customers yet.
I would like enough licensing to keep honest people honest and an
operationally oriented reminder for the annual renewal.
Sam
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM, zMan wrote:
> Gahh, "IF BibBox, Inc".
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 201
And one more thing: moderately forgiving formatting would be good.
This won't be an issue on z, of course, but I remember one CPUID
scheme on Linux that insisted on UNIX-style linends (even though the
data was a single line). So if you emailed a key to someone whose
email was on a Windows box, and
Gahh, "IF BibBox, Inc".
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:11 PM, zMan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Sam Siegel wrote:
>> Hello List - I'm attempting to create a licensing mechanism for a bit
>> of software. I would like to be able to use a unique and
>> non-modifiable identifier as part
Wow, I can't seem to type OR read today. You get what I mean tho.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:11 PM, zMan wrote:
> Gahh, "IF BibBox, Inc".
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Sam Siegel wrote:
> Hello List - I'm attempting to create a licensing mechanism for a bit
> of software. I would like to be able to use a unique and
> non-modifiable identifier as part of the mechanism.
>
> The CSRSI callable service and STSI instruction provide a
Hello List - I'm attempting to create a licensing mechanism for a bit
of software. I would like to be able to use a unique and
non-modifiable identifier as part of the mechanism.
The CSRSI callable service and STSI instruction provide a variety of
hardware related identifiers.
CSRSI returns fiel
91 matches
Mail list logo
