Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Really Prolific?

medo64.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Really Prolific?

#51

Post by josephcsible »

manicdee wrote: post #41
josephcsible wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the effect of using a clone is that the device name is replaced with the message "THIS IS NOT PROLIFIC PL2303. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SUPPLIER.", it seems pretty clear that this is intentional sabotage.

Your definition of sabotage is quite broad and creative. There is no damage to the hardware. The driver is simply not operating with hardware that Prolific didn’t get paid to support.

If a disgruntled employee went into the office one night and changed all of the computers to not try to boot from the hard drive anymore, would that not be sabotage, just because it's possible to undo?

Re: Really Prolific?

#52

Post by josephcsible »

manicdee wrote: post #39
xupybd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you have no way of knowing that you are buying a fake device. If you run the risk of buying a fake and having it not work then why buy that brand? Buy one that will just work and no risk of bricked fakes. Prolific are harming their brand by doing this. I will now be on alert to avoid their products. Not because I take moral issue with them not allowing me to use fakes, but because I risk getting a…

Yet if Prolific support the fakes, they end up wasting time and money trying to provide tech support to people experiencing issues with fakes, or having hostile customers trying to get refunds on fakes from Prolific. The better option is to find ways to ensure you are buying legitimate items, such as avoiding Amazon, eBay, AliBaba, etc.

There's a difference between not supporting something and going out of your way to make sure it doesn't work.

Re: Really Prolific?

#53

Post by josephcsible »

TwoNineFive wrote: post #34

Josip is being hyperbolic. This does not brick or change his devices. I am going to defend Prolific here and say they are probably doing the right thing. I use FTDI, Prolific, and other similar serial adapters on a daily basis and Chinese ripoffs are a problem. I want to know right away if the device I bought is a fake. The people selling the devices, usually Chinese vendors on Aliexpress or Amazon, DON'T CARE that t…

> I want to know right away if the device I bought is a fake.

This is definitely a reasonable thing to want, but Prolific could have done that in a much better way, either by just giving a warning and still allowing the clone to work, or by only triggering when a device is first set up, not just suddenly after it's been in the field and working fine for years.

> The only way Prolific can get these guys to stop is to get the end-user pissed off

I'm not okay with being used as collateral damage for some company's brand enforcement efforts.

> He bought a cheap fake chip, knows it, and wants his free ride.

The article says "I bought device without knowing it has a fake chip in it." Are you accusing him of lying?

Re: Really Prolific?

#54

Post by munch117 »

josephcsible wrote: post #49
manicdee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is beneficial for their chips: the driver will work exactly as advertised and tested. The drivers do not break clones on purpose, the drivers simply don’t enable clones to work. Write your own driver if you want to use the clones. It is not Prolific’s job to support hardware they didn’t design, build and test. Even more importantly it is not Prolific’s job to support competitors who are not going to respect Prolif…

But the driver doesn't work any differently for their own chips than the old one did. And this change was definitely, unambiguously, breaking clones on purpose.

How could you possibly know that?

For all we know, the new driver could have been a rewrite from scratch (say to support new products that run at higher speeds than the older driver could support), and the new driver never worked with this particular clone to begin with.

Keep in mind that the driver developer may not even be in possession of a clone of this type. Clones see new versions over time just like any other product, the only thing is that since they don't advertise their true version, it's impossible to practically support them.

Re: Really Prolific?

#55

Post by josephcsible »

munch117 wrote: post #54
josephcsible wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the driver doesn't work any differently for their own chips than the old one did. And this change was definitely, unambiguously, breaking clones on purpose.

How could you possibly know that? For all we know, the new driver could have been a rewrite from scratch (say to support new products that run at higher speeds than the older driver could support), and the new driver never worked with this particular clone to begin with. Keep in mind that the driver developer may not even be in possession of a clone of this type. Clones see new versions over time just like any other…

The new driver detects clones, puts "THIS IS NOT PROLIFIC PL2303. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SUPPLIER." in Device Manager, and refuses to work. What sequence of events do you see that would have led to that string existing, let alone all of that happening, unintentionally?

Re: Really Prolific?

#56

Post by munch117 »

josephcsible wrote: post #55
munch117 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you possibly know that? For all we know, the new driver could have been a rewrite from scratch (say to support new products that run at higher speeds than the older driver could support), and the new driver never worked with this particular clone to begin with. Keep in mind that the driver developer may not even be in possession of a clone of this type. Clones see new versions over time just like any other…

The new driver detects clones, puts "THIS IS NOT PROLIFIC PL2303. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SUPPLIER." in Device Manager, and refuses to work. What sequence of events do you see that would have led to that string existing, let alone all of that happening, unintentionally?

The string is intentional. But that doesn't mean the author had a practical way of making the driver work with any and all clones.

Re: Really Prolific?

#57

Post by josephcsible »

munch117 wrote: post #56
josephcsible wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new driver detects clones, puts "THIS IS NOT PROLIFIC PL2303. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SUPPLIER." in Device Manager, and refuses to work. What sequence of events do you see that would have led to that string existing, let alone all of that happening, unintentionally?

The string is intentional. But that doesn't mean the author had a practical way of making the driver work with any and all clones.

What I'm saying is that just "don't write code to try to detect clones, and treat every chip the same as you're currently treating official ones" would have been sufficient to make it work, and they intentionally did extra work and wrote extra code to make it not work on clones.

Re: Really Prolific?

#58

Post by dathinab »

muro wrote: post #47
dathinab wrote: post #20

> For me the concept of bricking device owned by an unsuspected user is a bridge too far. Its also highly illegal, in the EU, at least as far as I know. (Assuming they brick instead of just block the device) It's destruction of the user property, nothing less. If it's "just" deciding to make their driver not work with 3rd party devices then it's legal, though. But highly offensive anyway as even the producer of the d…

Buying or importing clones/fakes is also illegal in the EU.

Yes but you need a court order to destroy them and the destruction has to be in a well controlled way.

More important interfaces are in general not protected by copyright or patent law. As such the chips _might_ be fully legal chips which just happen to have the same interface.

Lastly the manufacturer of the device which includes the chips might have bought the chips for which the driver was made and someone else in the supply chain might have switched them out, potentially creating the situation where there is no fault with anyone hit by this. And idk. but punishing random persons which metaphorically speaking have just been at the crime scene but are innocent and didn't even know there was a crime going on is _never_ ok.

Re: Really Prolific?

#59

Post by munch117 »

josephcsible wrote: post #57
munch117 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The string is intentional. But that doesn't mean the author had a practical way of making the driver work with any and all clones.

What I'm saying is that just "don't write code to try to detect clones, and treat every chip the same as you're currently treating official ones" would have been sufficient to make it work, and they intentionally did extra work and wrote extra code to make it not work on clones.

Again, you do not actually know that. If you read what I wrote earlier, then you would understand that there are plausible scenarios where no intentional breakage occurred.

Re: Really Prolific?

#60

Post by josephcsible »

munch117 wrote: post #59
josephcsible wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm saying is that just "don't write code to try to detect clones, and treat every chip the same as you're currently treating official ones" would have been sufficient to make it work, and they intentionally did extra work and wrote extra code to make it not work on clones.

Again, you do not actually know that. If you read what I wrote earlier, then you would understand that there are plausible scenarios where no intentional breakage occurred.

I don't know for sure that it was intentional, but you also don't know for sure that it wasn't. And the existence of the string is quite strong evidence in favor of it being intentional.
Post reply on HN