7 Mar
2012
7 Mar
'12
3:11 a.m.
Hi Brian,
* I do cost reduce solutions. However, I feel
designs should "do no
harm". In other words, the cost reduction might create units that
do not function, but they should never adversely affect the target
vintage equipment.
I can assure you that our choice of parts does not harm
anything. Unless
you actively want to
damage the unit (try hot plugging the drive; I still do this all the
time), I don't see an issue here.
Ask ten architects about how to build a house and I am sure you will get
varying results.
I would really like to avoid the impression something is broken. It's
not, it's working.
* As a fellow enthusiast, I share David's
concern over the closed and
guarded nature of the KryoFlux Analyzer. I don't buy the arguments
in the FAQ. I see no issue with letting anyone creating IPFs, as I
feel the community will self select the people who do it well. As
well, it's been my experience that there are lots of very
intelligent people in this community, and one delude themselves
thinking a "complex" solution is not useful to others without
extensive training/education.
We have two separate products for this, one is
KryoFlux with DTC (the
disk tool console) that
will completely satisfy many private users. The other is our Analyser
that will aid a preservationist
to verify authenticity and integrity of data ingested. This is aimed at
institutions. We might change
that in the future due to many requests, however, we still have to
figure out to make sure it's
understood as an IDE and that you need to understand how disk coding
works, otherwise it's
useless. Someone not familiar with C++ also won't have much fun with an
IDE for that.
If you would have to handle all the feedback and questions, you might
see this in a different light.
It helps discouraging those that have no serious interest, users that
really want it usually just contact
us and we arrange for something.
As a side note: Everyone is free to come up with their own format or do
their own Analyser,
no one is forced buying into our solution.
* I disagree with Christian's "audit"
response. I don't think the OP
was lamenting the fact that he/she could not audit the source, but
that a closed source product can never be truly "audited", as the
author can always doctor the version provided for audit. And, even
if I am wrong and it can, it creates a perception problem.
I can't argue
against that. However, it would require criminal energy to
pimp or change a
version meant for audit. And I don't see why we'd break something in the
official version
that would only work in the audit version.
* The legal concerns about "conflict of
interest" do concern me.
There are precious few people in this area of expertise, I think
it's the responsibility of hardware and software vendors to ensure
such a product or offering does not fragment the group. Christian's
response did not clear things up. I don't understand how "
What I find interesting is that several of my UK, European and Japanese
contacts (at various computer museums in those countries) were scared
off of working with the DiscFerret. Nearly every one of them cited the
same reason: "conflicts of interest" between assisting with DiscFerret
and using commercial versions of the Kryoflux analysis software (which I
suspect would be CTA or a variant thereof).
" would get one "thrown out of the 'house'". While it's
an unsavory
topic, it's one that demands some type of response. If someone said
that to me, I believe I would send a note to the individual and
request he/she forward it on, assuring them that they can work on
both projects without fear of litigation.
There's nothing to clear up, and
it does not demand a response. I am not
aware of any issues,
except what I heard via a mailing list from a competitive developer. To
me this is not a trusted
source of information. I am in contact with our customers directly. As I
said in another reply:
There is no NDA involved, no contract, nothing. If someone is scared
working with a
competitive product that maybe has to do with the quality of the product
or the demeanour of
the person representing it.
If I was to damage a project's reputation in public, such created
scenario would for sure fit pretty well.
* I agree that you're paying someone not to
develop a solution, but to
*NOT* do something else. I'm a good example. I give up weeknights
and weekends to develop products because I get paid to do so. I
could enjoy another hobby if I was so inclined.
That's very well worded
and hits the nail on the head. It happens that
our "hobby", preserving software,
is very costly because it's hard to find a game (or application) in good
shape for a decent price these
days.