MOTUnation.com

James Steele wrote:

b-righteous wrote:I hope it won't require iLok 2's new buggy more intrusive protection.

FUD.

+1



I need some food now...

carrythebanner wrote:Care to elaborate on that? I've heard that the iLok 2 is newer and supposedly more secure technology, but I haven't yet heard any reports that it's "more intrusive" than the original iLok.

More secure = more intrusive. To be clear, it now has different tiers of protection. It is the higher level of security that is more complex and intrusive and is currently causing bugs in the software that is using it. The software that does not use the newer protection scheme does not suffer from the issues. This is verified by a dev. currently using the new protection. Only other issue is the new 64 bit drivers were flakey but I guess that is expected and may already be solved.

Don't get me qrong, I am not one who is against dongles and copy protection. However, I don't like the extra layer of potential issues they can cause. It is hard enough already to make all this stuff work together.

b-righteous wrote:

carrythebanner wrote:Care to elaborate on that? I've heard that the iLok 2 is newer and supposedly more secure technology, but I haven't yet heard any reports that it's "more intrusive" than the original iLok.

More secure = more intrusive. To be clear, it now has different tiers of protection. It is the higher level of security that is more complex and intrusive and is currently causing bugs in the software that is using it. The software that does not use the newer protection scheme does not suffer from the issues. This is verified by a dev. currently using the new protection. Only other issue is the new 64 bit drivers were flakey but I guess that is expected and may already be solved.

That's more words on the topic, but not much of an elaboration. Intrusive how — does software using it collect personal info or behave rootkit-like in some way? Which software are you talking about? Who are your sources? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that from where I sit the information is vague and unverifiable.

b-righteous wrote:Don't get me qrong, I am not one who is against dongles and copy protection. However, I don't like the extra layer of potential issues they can cause. It is hard enough already to make all this stuff work together.

Right, I'm not suggesting you have anything against copy protection. Just trying to suss out where your statement is coming from.

carrythebanner wrote:I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that from where I sit the information is vague and unverifiable.

+1