Trey @ COBB is making accusations again

Announcements, dicussion about any topic that would have broad interest to the forum members

Moderator: Freon

Trey @ COBB is making accusations again

Postby silverpike » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:04 pm

Colby, is this true?

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpos ... stcount=68

Please respond, this is a serious accusation.
User avatar
silverpike
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:48 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby cboles » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:08 pm

Thanks for noticing. I have posted some responses in that thread.
cboles
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby silverpike » Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:52 pm

cboles wrote:Thanks for noticing. I have posted some responses in that thread.

Great, thanks.

Well, if anyone is reading, I came down pretty hard on Trey and David. However, I think at this point it's worth it. I'm really tired of their continuous BS.

However, one thing has become clear to me. Colby, one thing you need to be very meticulous about is document everything you have done. Good documentation is the only defense against raving *ssholes. On a more serious note, it is also the method that US patents are issued. Inventors will document their invention as it unfolds, and then sign and date it during the submission process. It is considered a solid defense, legally.

I will post again on the other subie tuning boards, and hopefully everyone making software will keep accurate records of what they are doing.
User avatar
silverpike
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:48 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby andenbre » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:09 pm

I read that and I could hear the beep beep beep of trey back stepping to apoligize for inacurate comments. I think Colby handled the accuisations professionaly and I feel that treys coments were a shot across openecus/colbys bow that deserved the response they received.
andenbre
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 10:48 am

Postby cboles » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:01 pm

This seems to be a random recurrence every 6 months or so. I'm not really sure what brings it on... Thanks for the support though.
cboles
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby 05GarnetLGT » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:40 am

F them.
the only tuning company who hasn't made a dick of themselves is turboXS, mainly because the UTEC has nothing to do with the stock programming.
05GarnetLGT
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:12 am

Postby silverpike » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:23 am

cboles wrote:This seems to be a random recurrence every 6 months or so. I'm not really sure what brings it on... Thanks for the support though.

Yeah no kidding. I can't figure that out to save my life. Why would he put his credibility on the line based on hearsay? I'm still trying to figure that out. Especially since the truth would be so easy to verify, it takes like 10 minutes.

BTW, I thought I read somewhere around here that you and Trey were on good terms (like 2 months ago)?
User avatar
silverpike
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:48 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby cboles » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:31 am

I don't see why we couldn't be on good terms - although I have never really spoke to Trey personally. I have run into their tuner Christian before and thought he was a really nice guy. I think user base between the Cobb products and the OpenECU stuff is different enough that it shouldn't be that threatening anyway.
cboles
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby xswrex » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:42 pm

Colby why didn't you throw the OPENECU KERNEL source in their face? You have posted it here quite some time ago!!!
On the other hand i don't see how openecu is related to the stupid things that a company does. They want to lock their stuff, no problem. We shouldn't give a isht, because we can flash our cars.
I wish someone could sue their ass for selling ROMS, then it would be fun.
xswrex
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:50 am

Postby cboles » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:43 pm

I will be posting all of the current source very soon. I just need to put the OS license info in all of the files.
cboles
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby Blindstuff » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:39 am

Kind of OT to this thread but the doubt arraised when i was reading the thread, if I flash my car using ECUFlash, will the AP still be able to conect to the ECU later on?
User avatar
Blindstuff
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:05 pm
Location: Ccs, Venezuela

Postby drees » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:51 am

Blindstuff wrote:Kind of OT to this thread but the doubt arraised when i was reading the thread, if I flash my car using ECUFlash, will the AP still be able to conect to the ECU later on?
Yes.
drees
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:05 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby Freon » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:46 pm

Keep in mind up until this latest development, the same was true in reverse. Protections like this are not inherent in the ECU design once you know how to read and write. So they have to be specifically added. The natural state is no, no protections.

Ecuflash has no protections in place, so yes, an AP will never have any trouble overwriting an ECU that was previously flashed with Ecuflash. Short of Colby adding such ability later to lock down the ECU, which seems counter to the whole idea.
Freon
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Postby dexmix » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:39 pm

cboles wrote:I will be posting all of the current source very soon. I just need to put the OS license info in all of the files.


you rock. But you knew that.
dexmix
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Westborough, MA

Postby zze86 » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:59 pm

Wow. just seems like they (EcuTek rep) are just digging themselves a bigger hole...

Keep up the good work!
zze86
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 3:10 pm


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests