[Info-vax] Eisner's PAKs, was: Re: Can't get hobbyist licenses from Openvmshobbyist

[MG]

JF Mezei schreef op 13-jan-2015 om 18:59:
> The concept of a OS provided LMF that is standard is neat IF it allows
> not only primary vendor but also *easily* allows ISVs to tailor their
> software.
>
> OS-X for instance has no such mechanism, so each app that needs to
> enforce some sort of licensing needs to build it's own.

Imagine, if without valid loaded licenses you'd be dropped into a
shell with no access to Quartz (or whatever the graphical user
environment is called in OS X) and without a functioning TCP/IP
stack...


> Adobe products use a 3rd party which means there are "unknown"
> nonAdobe files in some Library folders that are actually part of
> the Adobe software. Not pretty.

So what, then not use Adobe software, right?  At least the core
parts of OS X are largely nag-free, save for a license agreement
pop-up window here and there...  (Or OS X should, a bit like SGI
did with IRIX, provide something like FlexLM packaged with the
OS for vendor usage.)


> What can be improved are the business practices around the PAKs,
> what sort of restrictions are imposed etc.

And guess what I was (mostly) talking about...

  - MG