Re: SafeBoot BROKEN (and instantly withdrawn)

In article <q3nPc.40$>
"Simon Hunt" <> wrote:
>
> There is no problem with Solo, but CBI simply just cant justify it's
> continued existence. For a long time it was an enjoyable thing for us to
> promote, recently though due to one event the funs been taken out of the
> project and for that, unfortunately all must suffer. Solo has never been in
> our core business plan. We made it because it was a challenge, going back or
> our roots if you will, and it did not cost us anything to support. Now it
> does cost us something to support and we are not having any fun doing so,
> we've decided not to continue with it.
>
> As other people have commented in the past there are companies such as
> SecurStar who are actively pursuing the consumer market. I wish Shaun, Paul
> and Wilfried success in this venture. I expect there are numerous places you
> can still download the cracked version of SafeBoot Solo if you really want
> to, If there was a flaw, we would have put it right, remember there are 2
> million or so corporate customers also using SafeBoot, and there is no
> difference in the codebase between the two, also, we've pulled ALL the
> consumer products, it's not the products which are at fault, we simply no
> longer want to deal with some of the people who were buying them.
>
> Simon.
>
That is a likely story. No one stops selling a profitable product because it is no longer "fun." That is a ridiculous statement on its face. Clearly, flaws in your software have come to light and you do not have the courage or character to admit same.

Such conduct on your part speaks to your personal and your company's lack of character and trustworthiness.

I have read many posts lately form dissatisfied customers that you have failed to assist in recovering their data after your software has made it inaccessible.

I have also read where there is one guy where you destroyed his drives on purpose because he made you mad. I would never trust such a company, nor should anyone else.

I have always believed that when something like this has comes to light, it is only the tip of the iceberg; for every problem that we hear about, you probably could multiply that by 100 or by 1000 to get the actual number of complaints and problems. I would never trust you, no matter what you say.

Anonymous

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:32:16 +0200 (CEST), in article
<>, Anonymous
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

>>I have read many posts lately form dissatisfied customers that you have failed to assist in recovering their data after your software has made it inaccessible.
>

Liar!

You have read *your* one post that you continue spamming this group
with.

>I have also read where there is one guy where you destroyed his drives on purpose because he made you mad. I would never trust such a company, nor should anyone else.
>

Care to provide a URL or Message ID for this? Or is this another
figment of your vivid imagination also?

You're the idiot who f***ed up his drives and tried to blame Safeboot
for it aren't you?

Now we've all got you and your stupidity to thank for its withdrawal
haven't we?

Stupid Moron!

John Smith

In article <>, Use-Author-
Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> In article <q3nPc.40$>
> "Simon Hunt" <> wrote:
> >
> > There is no problem with Solo, but CBI simply just cant justify it's
> > continued existence. For a long time it was an enjoyable thing for us to
> > promote, recently though due to one event the funs been taken out of the
> > project and for that, unfortunately all must suffer. Solo has never been in
> > our core business plan. We made it because it was a challenge, going back or
> > our roots if you will, and it did not cost us anything to support. Now it
> > does cost us something to support and we are not having any fun doing so,
> > we've decided not to continue with it.
> >
> > As other people have commented in the past there are companies such as
> > SecurStar who are actively pursuing the consumer market. I wish Shaun, Paul
> > and Wilfried success in this venture. I expect there are numerous places you
> > can still download the cracked version of SafeBoot Solo if you really want
> > to, If there was a flaw, we would have put it right, remember there are 2
> > million or so corporate customers also using SafeBoot, and there is no
> > difference in the codebase between the two, also, we've pulled ALL the
> > consumer products, it's not the products which are at fault, we simply no
> > longer want to deal with some of the people who were buying them.
> >
> > Simon.
> >
> That is a likely story. No one stops selling a profitable product because it is no longer "fun." That is a ridiculous statement on its face. Clearly, flaws in your software have come to light and you do not have the courage or character to admit same.

Lets see, they already have a better product providing the same
functionality, and they pull the lesser product due to ROI (return on
investment), not based on consumer complaints, and you don't believe it?

> Such conduct on your part speaks to your personal and your company's lack of character and trustworthiness.

Yea, it says that they pulled a product with a low profit margin to help
their bottom line. Since they are marketing toward a more
technical/professional base it makes sense to most of us technical
types. Doesn't sound underhanded or lame to me, only your complaints and
failure to understand anything but your own incompetence sounds lame.

> I have read many posts lately form dissatisfied customers that you have failed to assist in recovering their data after your software has made it inaccessible.

I searched the net, read 4 pages of comments about SOLO and only found
one moron that keeps complaining about it, the same writing style the
same complaint, but I found many postings of people defending the
product against your assault. I didn't see any postings by "Many" users
that had any complaints about the product.

>
> I have also read where there is one guy where you destroyed his drives on purpose because he made you mad. I would never trust such a company, nor should anyone else.

The same idiot that started this thread is the one that didn't follow
the directions, bitched about it, continues to bitch about it, and can't
seem to understand that HE screwed up - come on now, who in their right
mind installs a drive encryption system and doesn't have a backup,
doesn't test it on a spare drive, doesn't accept that you shouldn't be
using any drive tools that move clusters, etc....

> I have always believed that when something like this has comes to light, it is only the tip of the iceberg; for every problem that we hear about, you probably could multiply that by 100 or by 1000 to get the actual number of complaints and problems. I would never trust you, no matter what you say.

I have always believed that the guilty party should admit their faults,
make it right, and then go away - once the OP posts that he screwed-up,
posts an apology to them, and then apologizes to the Usenet groups that
he's spamming with his lame posts, then all will be good in the universe
again

--
--

(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Leythos

> > >
> > That is a likely story. No one stops selling a profitable product
because it is no longer "fun." That is a ridiculous statement on its face.
Clearly, flaws in your software have come to light and you do not have the
courage or character to admit same.
>


Let's get one thing clear here - we never did any marketing for Solo, and
the money it generated per month would not have covered my monthly travel.
Solo was not intended to be, and never was, a commercial venture for us - we
released it because it was a *good* thing to do - it solved a problem some
users of this group had - in fact it was users of this group who originally
ASKED for it! The time my developers spent on it was a good learning
experience for them, and it taught CBI that the consumer / home user market
is a different beast to the commercial world. I can prove this is the case -
how many fixes or improvements did we make to Solo over it's life? the
answer - ONE. We cut a new version when we released our 4.2 commercial
version only because the build script builds both (they are the same code
base). That's not the attitude of a company making money or wanting to make
money out of a product.

My attitude always has been if you want features, chrome and a glossy
product, buy something else. After all Solo is/was only $50. I've been
thinking of pulling it for months - you can find threads at least in
alt.scamdisk about this. My next generation version of SafeBoot does not
have a Solo variant, so sooner or later it was going to get dropped. Yes,
I'm sad to see it go because I enjoy being involved in the grass roots end
user community, but I've realised that *NO ONE* can make a whole disk PBA
product resilient enough for all the stupid things the uneducated masses get
up to. I don't want to be responsible for peoples data.

In the corporate world we NEVER loose any data, because corporate have IT
people, and corporate users tend not to tinker. For the home user market I
think there are safer things like Scramdisk which is not affected by
tinkering as much as products like Solo and DCPP.

Simon.

Simon Hunt

"how many fixes or improvements did we make to Solo over it's life? the
answer - ONE. We cut a new version when we released our 4.2 commercial
version only because the build script builds both (they are the same code
base). "

Is this versoin of Solo 4.13a or was it a newer version and if a newer
version where can I as a "HAPPY" customer of 15 odd months get hold of this
newer version?

howamidifferent

In article <ceqn21$osr$1$>
"Simon Hunt" <> wrote:
>
>
> > > >
> > > That is a likely story. No one stops selling a profitable product
> because it is no longer "fun." That is a ridiculous statement on its face.
> Clearly, flaws in your software have come to light and you do not have the
> courage or character to admit same.
> >
>
>
> Let's get one thing clear here - we never did any marketing for Solo, and
> the money it generated per month would not have covered my monthly travel.
> Solo was not intended to be, and never was, a commercial venture for us - we
> released it because it was a *good* thing to do - it solved a problem some
> users of this group had - in fact it was users of this group who originally
> ASKED for it! The time my developers spent on it was a good learning
> experience for them, and it taught CBI that the consumer / home user market
> is a different beast to the commercial world. I can prove this is the case -
> how many fixes or improvements did we make to Solo over it's life? the
> answer - ONE. We cut a new version when we released our 4.2 commercial
> version only because the build script builds both (they are the same code
> base). That's not the attitude of a company making money or wanting to make
> money out of a product.
>
> My attitude always has been if you want features, chrome and a glossy
> product, buy something else. After all Solo is/was only $50. I've been
> thinking of pulling it for months - you can find threads at least in
> alt.scamdisk about this. My next generation version of SafeBoot does not
> have a Solo variant, so sooner or later it was going to get dropped. Yes,
> I'm sad to see it go because I enjoy being involved in the grass roots end
> user community, but I've realised that *NO ONE* can make a whole disk PBA
> product resilient enough for all the stupid things the uneducated masses get
> up to. I don't want to be responsible for peoples data.
>
> In the corporate world we NEVER loose any data, because corporate have IT
> people, and corporate users tend not to tinker. For the home user market I
> think there are safer things like Scramdisk which is not affected by
> tinkering as much as products like Solo and DCPP.
>
> Simon.

Dear Simon:

You would have us believe that your motivation for the product introduction and maintenance was altruism? Highly unlikely, but if so, what happened to that altruism now? Was your altruism based upon having "fun?" What, no more fun so no more altruism? You see, any way that you slice it does not have the ring of truth. Business decisions are not based upon altruism and having fun; they are based upon profits and potential liability.

If liability increases, as with a flawed product, and profits decrease, because of the decrease in sales because of discovered flaws and or poor reputation for customer service, then and only then is a product pulled. You are running a business ostensibly for the making of profits, so it can only be reasonably assumed that your increase in liability and your concomitant decrease in sales (increase in expenses) have caused you to pull the product.

It is also assumed, of course, that you will never admit to this.

It is also assumed, moreover, that the heretofore discovered and as yet undiscovered flaws in these products probably exist in your other products as well, since you claim to use the same code base for all or most of them.

Your "tinkering" claims and discussion is rather nonsensical; pgpdisk, for one, is rock solid, does not require any special precautions, and has no special sensitivities or need of special requirements, as does your software. Therefore, it appears it is the lack of robustness of your software that is the problem, and not the fault of your poor customers who become ensnared in its flaws to their detriment, don't you agree?

You are taking a flawed and unprofitable product off the market, just admit it and be done with it, it is a very simple thing.

Moreover, to regain your reputation, you should contact all customers known to you that your product has harmed and make restitution to them, whatever their individual cases may be. In so doing, those affected customers may then report that you have made amends to them and then your reputation will be on the road to being restored; any good and prudent businessman would proceed in this manner outlined.

So, get to work, Simon, and do the right thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.

In article <>, Use-Author-
Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> If liability increases, as with a flawed product, and profits decrease, because of the decrease in sales because of discovered flaws and or poor reputation for customer service, then and only then is a product pulled. You are running a business ostensibly for the making of profits, so it can only be reasonably assumed that your increase in liability and your concomitant decrease in sales (increase in expenses) have caused you to pull the product.

Keep in mind that I'm not defending the company with this next part,
only pointing out a side that you seem to always miss:

As with shareware, people often put out a product for free or small
nominal cost to test the waters, when they reach a base set of users
they take the product to the next level - increasing options, glitz,
etc... and the discontinue the old product so that it doesn't detract
from sales of the new product.

Don't get me wrong, a bad product is always a good reason to remove it
from the market, but taking a product the route I described is also a
normal part of many developers and development companies plans.

Since you two seem to already know each other, from your support
history, why do you keep hiding behind that anonymous account?

How about you just admit that they took the loss-leader product off the
market once it got enough exposure to make the packaged product sell
enough to justify it.

You might want to look up the marketing term "Loss Leader" sometime when
you have a rational moment, it's used by about every company on the
planet.

One last thing - get a newsreader that knows how to properly post to
usenet - the standard is to end lines at 72 or 76 characters.

--
--

(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Leythos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

<Anonymous-Coward> wrote:
> Your "tinkering" claims and discussion is rather nonsensical;
> pgpdisk, for one, is rock solid, does not require any special precautions,

You're comparing container encryption with full harddrive encryption. Are
you a complete idiot? Oh, wait, you've already answered that question.
Repeatedly.

> You are taking a flawed and unprofitable product off the market,
> just admit it and be done with it, it is a very simple thing.

Unprofitable, yes. Flawed? Perhaps. Though I haven't seen a single sign
there are any flaws in it in my time of using it. Nor have I seen a single
post here about any such flaws (user stupidity is not a product flaw).

> So, get to work, Simon, and do the right thing.

He was doing the right thing. You, and others like you, made it not worth
his while to offer what essentially was a great service to this community. A
professional product at a shareware price.

If you want his product now you'll have to pay the full corporate price for
it. Got only yourself to blame. A pity too. I was hoping the hibernate
support would eventually filter down into a solo update.


- --
Frode

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBE6EoaQyjry06KN0RAidxAJ9GV+BFTpvK2AqLNoAFYB emL+ECXwCfQe5O
No+zawyWL4kHcNVinrL6iX4=
=9NL5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Frode

On 6 Aug 2004 13:57:44 -0000, in article
<>,
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

>Your "tinkering" claims and discussion is rather nonsensical; pgpdisk, for one, is rock solid, does not require any special precautions, and has no special sensitivities or need of special requirements, as does your software.

PGP Disk and Safeboot Solo are two completely different types of disk
encryption products!

John Smith

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:49:37 +0100, in article
<>, John Smith
<> wrote:

<snip repost of ridiculously bad wrap>

Oops, sorry about that!

John Smith