|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
(This message is in two parts, due to the 15K limit, imposed by the list.)
The current discussion and questions surrounding Omega's rumored
or actual choice to move to "fingerprint"'ed passwords and/or
(possibly) non-permanent passwords, reminds me of a similar
contreversy surroundng the introduction of hardware locks used
by Autodesk in the late 80's and early 90's. I think there may
be other parallels between the rise and fall of Autodesk and the
current situation with respect to Omega Research, but I'll leave
that analysis and comparison to those who are more adept in such
matters.
John Walker was the founder of Autodesk, and he collected together a
series of notes, white papers, and other sources into a book called the
"Autodesk File", describing how Autodesk got its start, its rise to
greatness, and its subsequent fall. Although the book is lengthy,
it is a must-read for any software entrepeneur, manager,
or corporate executive. The book is out-of-print, but through the
miracle of the Internet, you can find the book both in HTML form and
PDF (600/so pages long) at:
http://www.fourmilab.com/autofile/
and:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/
in Europe.
Back to subject at hand. Autodesk in its early days, decided
to go with "hardware locks" to protect their licensed software.
Then, in a subsequent release, decided to remove the lock, and
later ... almost decided to re-introduce the hardware lock.
Here is Walker's initial position paper supporting the
introduction of the hardware lock:
http://www.fourmilab.com/autofile/www/chapter2_48.html#2814
And the subsequent decision to remove the hardware lock:
http://www.fourmilab.com/autofile/www/chapter2_51.html#2957
And his argument to reject the proposed re-introduction of the lock:
http://www.fourmilab.com/autofile/www/chapter2_80.html#4395
The document, describing the debate surrounding the idea of
re-introducing the lock, is reprinted below. While reading, I would
suggest that you substitute "Omega Research" for "Autodesk", "TS2000"
for "AutoCAD", and either "dongle" (hardware lock) or "fingerprinted
password" or "non-permanent password" for each occurrence of "hardware
lock" below, as the situation applies. When I do that exercise, I see
parallels, if in fact (and it is hard to tell what the facts are
at this point in time) Omega is actively contemplating the use of a
non-permanent password, or "fingerprinted" password, or hardware-lock
protection in its new line of software products. I think John Walker
makes a strong case for just how important these decisions can be, and
the level of impact it can have on customers, their use of the product,
and their perception of the company that sells the product.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hardware Lock Strikes Back
I usually don't believe in premonitions. I spent Monday,
January 29th, 1990, as I spend most days--sitting at the
keyboard working on software development. Usually, I'm
as happy as clam while doing this, but that day I felt a
most unusual, unfocused mild anxiety: as if something
bad were about to happen, but I didn't know what. In the
early afternoon, the little flag went up on my electronic
mailbox, and, reading the missive that arrived,
discovered that Autodesk had decided to re-introduce
the hardware lock in domestic AutoCAD Release 11.
There are some decisions that are just so dumb I run out
of adjectives, and this was one of them. I was also taken
aback, given that I was the person who designed the
original hardware lock, built the first prototype on my
dining room table, ultimately, as president of Autodesk
decided to introduce it in international versions of
AutoCAD 2.1 and in domestic versions of 2.5, took the
heat when U.S. customers arose against us (see page ),
and finally decided, in November of 1986 to remove it
(see page ), that nobody had consulted me or even
informed me of this decision to reintroduce the lock. The
announcement of the reintroduction of the lock
characterised the lock as a ``deep emotional issue,'' as if
to characterise those who opposed it as irrational, rather
than, based on personal experience, feeling that
re-locking the product would not be in the company's
best interests.
This is the only instance when, after leaving the
management of Autodesk, I drew a line in the sand and
said, ``I am going to stop this.'' I immediately posted the
following argument against the reintroduction of the
hardware lock, and began to organise every resource I
could summon to prevent Autodesk from jumping, once
again, off the same cliff it had only four years before. I
had not only written the copy for a full page
advertisement addressed to Autodesk shareholders to run
in The Wall Street Journal, I had obtained, from their
Palo Alto offices, deadline, submission format, and price
information. The next day, January 30th, Al Green
reversed the decision and announced that AutoCAD
Release 11 domestic would remain unlocked.
First Strike
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 13:56:05 PST
From: Ron McElhaney
To: Release 11 Developers
Subject: Meeting on Thursday
As you may know, the company has decided to lock ACAD both
internationally and domestically. The h/w lock which will be used
is the Rainbow parallel lock, with which we have had some
experience, and which is in wide use by Intergraph on their
MicroStation product.
The fact that this is such a deep emotional issue makes it a
difficult one to discuss. Most of you will have very strong opinions
concerning this decision. Much of that strong feeling is derived
from the very painful ``exercise-in-futility'' which characterized
the last attempt to lock AutoCAD a few years ago. In fact, many
of you were here at the time, and formed your opinions
first-hand. Things are different now, both in terms of the nature
of the business itself and in the commercial use of the h/w lock
on CAD products, but the emotional content of the issue itself is
still high, undiminished by the distance of time.
I have been asked if there are any technical issues which would
interfere with our ability to ship a locked product, or which would
cause the release of R11 to be significantly delayed. It has been
very difficult to separate out the emotional reaction to such a
question and to achieve an objective assessment of the effect of
this decision on the release of R11. Speaking objectively, the
current (although not final) conclusion seems to be that the
purely technical issues (which don't require re-working the lock
challenge mechanism to make it more secure) are not significant
and should not, by themselves, cause a significant delay to R11.
Unfortunately one never deals with purely technical issues in
developing software. Getting R11 out on time is a matter of
developing software, to be sure, but it is also a matter of deep
personal committment to a goal, and a level of self-motivation
and hard work which traditional companies very rarely see, but
which we see at Autodesk almost all the time. What will the total
impact to such a software development organization; an
organization which already is working at a level which can only be
described as ``hyperdrive'', and whose pace can be maintained,
but only for a carefully-calculated period of time without burning
everyone out.
The fact that this decision automatically evokes emotional
responses means that is must be widely discussed and explained.
Knowing how and why a decision was made, and then
disagreeing with it, is much different than merely disagreeing
with it based upon an automatic response to it. I have asked Al
Green and Malcolm Davies to give a presentation to the R11
developers, for the straightforward purpose of talking about why
this decision was made, and how important they feel it is to the
success of the company for us to do this. Much of the impetus for
this decision arose from the increasing inability of our dealers to
be commercially successful representing Autodesk, and Malcolm
has invited at least two of those dealers to be present at the
meeting to tell their side of this very complex story.
I have asked that the meeting be held on Thursday at 1:00 in the
Tech I conference room. Please give very serious thought to the
issues which this decision addresses. It is important that you be
prepared to discuss your concerns and objections.
Please be there.
--ron
--
| Gary Funck, Intrepid Technology, gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx, (650) 964-8135
|