A very serious suggestion.

[Alan]

John Corliss wrote:

I, and I'm sure many others, couldn't care any less about the effect
this has on signature files being "broken."


To everybody else, any opinions?

It could result in a frenzied shark attack though. A broken sig might
upset that son-of-a-standard that's not really a standard that he's
always on about. Still, no harm in occassionally dragging a stick along
the bars of the cage to wake him up.

 

[Onno Tasler]

alt.comp.freeware.moderated is the best solution.

A moderated alt.-newsgroup? That would be quite strange, since
alt.-newsgroups are those that are "free for whatever", without the
strict rules of the normal newsnet hierarchy.

For a moderated newsgroup, I would suggest next to (The second one does already exist
and is moderated)

Yet, I do not think that a moderated freeware newsgroup is a good idea,
except for a group that announces new freeware programmes -
for this (moderated) and
for general discussion (unmoderated) -
this groups would still have the advantage of an "official" FAQ and
Charta, which are binding and allow the maintainer to cancel certaim
articles under specific circumstances.

I'm not sure exactly how to start a new group or how the process of
moderating goes.

There is no charge in building up a newsgroup, but you have to fit
certain criteria. alt.-newsgroups can be opened by anyone at any time,
but the question is if the big newsprovider are going to carry it.

non-alt newsgroups are usually managed by some group, which maintains a
quite stable list that most newsprovider carry. should
have the answer to those questions, and if they don't have, they should
at least know whom to ask.

bye,

Onno

 

[REMbranded]

Onno Tasler <[email protected]> wrote:

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

A moderated alt.-newsgroup? That would be quite strange, since
alt.-newsgroups are those that are "free for whatever", without the
strict rules of the normal newsnet hierarchy.

Have a look at your newsgroup list. I did a search on ".moderated" and
the alt.* groups displayed almost at the start. There are many, many
of them. I assume they are started from a situation such as this one
and volunteers do the moderating.

For a moderated newsgroup, I would suggest next to (The second one does already exist
and is moderated)

Yet, I do not think that a moderated freeware newsgroup is a good idea,
except for a group that announces new freeware programmes -

That's the gist of it. recommendations for questions in this group can
be gleaned from the moderated announcements and from the normal
sources as well, individual experiences.

There is no charge in building up a newsgroup, but you have to fit
certain criteria. alt.-newsgroups can be opened by anyone at any time,
but the question is if the big newsprovider are going to carry it.

That could be a problem. If people interested request it I think it
will be carried, especially if it is an active group. If
alt.spanking.reality.moderated is carried (my feed anyway) I think a
serious group would gladly be added.

non-alt newsgroups are usually managed by some group, which maintains a
quite stable list that most newsprovider carry. should
have the answer to those questions, and if they don't have, they should
at least know whom to ask.

Thanks Onno.

 

[BillR]

Before the anybody tries to insist that I'm trying to tell people what
to do, I qualify this message with the following:

If you're asking for a program to meet a software need and have a
specific belief regarding what is and isn't freeware, then include
that into your signature file.

I suspect that this won't make much difference unless it can be boiled
down to perhaps three categories. Perhaps "Pure Freeware or Close"
(soon to become NearWare or CloseWear?), "Free -- No Ads, No Nags",
and "Free -- No Spyware".

Even then I'm not sure it will make a lot of difference.

A better approach might be to attempt to establish a simple
semi-standard format for posting suggestions. If 10 of the 15 most
frequent posters adopted it, even many casual visitors would see that
it is expected.

The best suggestion though, would be for a few of the regulars to be
more friendly and focus on providing help rather than defending
freeware or putting people down. (I'm _not_ advocating making this a
generic help forum.)

BTW, John, if you change the format slightly, there is no reason to
break the sig.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

A moderated alt.-newsgroup? That would be quite strange, since
alt.-newsgroups are those that are "free for whatever", without
the strict rules of the normal newsnet hierarchy.

alt.* was created to facilitate groups that otherwise could not be
created and propagated, not to facilitate groups in which "anything
goes." There are quite a few moderated alt.* groups. Here's a link
to one for which the need for moderation should be pretty clear.
<http://www.algebra.com/~asapm/>

 

[BillR]

alt.comp.freeware.moderated is the best solution. Unfortunately this
is a pretty large job and so far no one has expressed interest in the
moderating of it.

If it ever happens (and I hope it does) a charter for the purest
freeware should be drawn up and reflect the content allowed to be
posted. Freeware sites can be asked to submit posts for what they
consider pure freeware and of course the rest of us also. The FAQs can
apply without any debate about them.

I think the most important objectives of a moderated group are:
1. to maintain a friendly tone and squelch the abuse and flaming;
2. to ensure that suggestions correctly identify the type of software;
and
3. to keep the group on-topic.

I guess I'm back to the core dispute, though, because while I would
prefer pure to use freeware, I usually prefer functionality and
compatibility even more. Hence I'm willing to put up with the fading
popup of PowerDesk, feature limitations of liteware (various
antivirals), discrete static ads, and sometimes even nags if they
aren't too obtrusive.

As an alternative to limiting discussion to pure freeware (which would
eliminate a fair amount of pricelessware), how about a simple, more
inclusive definition of "topical" accompanied by a requirement to
identify several key characteristics.

I recommend characteristics because it will eliminate many of the
definition disputes. It also doesn't presume that a predefined set of
names will remain both reasonably mutually exclusive, exhaustive, and
relevant.

Off the top of my head, I think five characteristics plus name and
purpose cover the important information.

Name -
Location - Both site description and download would be best
License - unrestricted/GPL/home being most common
Source - open/available/none
OS -
Other limits - Function or time restrictions.

Note that this is quite similar to the pricelessware information.

I'm not completely blind to problems with this suggestion, but before
refining it, what do you think?

a. moderated group objectives
b. definition
c. characteristics

BillR

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

A moderated alt.-newsgroup? That would be quite strange, since
alt.-newsgroups are those that are "free for whatever", without the
strict rules of the normal newsnet hierarchy.

FWIW, my ISP supports 156 moderated news groups, of which 109 are alt.
Groups.

 

[Onno Tasler]

Onno Tasler wrote:

alt.* was created to facilitate groups that otherwise could not be
created and propagated, not to facilitate groups in which "anything
goes."

I said the alt.-groups are not as strict as the normal hierarchy, I did
not say it is anarchic. And, as seen in the thread for the new
newsgroup, it is much easier to create an alt.-newsgroup instead of a
normal one.

There are quite a few moderated alt.* groups. Here's a link
to one for which the need for moderation should be pretty clear.
<http://www.algebra.com/~asapm/>

That is funny, I did not find any moderated alt.-groups. Perhaps I did
not search well enough... (Or my newsserver hides them from me )

bye,

Onno

 

[John Corliss]

I suspect that this won't make much difference

Bill,
It depends on who it makes a difference *to*. If I post a request
and include the following:
________________________
No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware, demoware,
nagware, shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware, viruses
or warez please.
________________________

and somebody STILL recommends one of those types, then they're just
being inconsiderate.

unless it can be boiled
down to perhaps three categories. Perhaps "Pure Freeware or Close"
(soon to become NearWare or CloseWear?), "Free -- No Ads, No Nags",
and "Free -- No Spyware".

I'm afraid that would be too vague for at least *my* liking. My
inclusion is very specific and will remain so. I don't want to have to
weed through recommendations for stuff that I have no interest in. If
other people know in advance, for instance, that I don't want to hear
about any time-limited software, they will be less likely to recommend
it. Not telling them my preferences and depending on others to say
something like say, "well, you might want to try 40tude Dialog, but
*it _is_ time-limited betaware" is unrealistic.

Hey, if other people want to be less specific in their inclusion,
that's their business.

Even then I'm not sure it will make a lot of difference.

Again, a difference to whom? 80)>

A better approach might be to attempt to establish a simple
semi-standard format for posting suggestions.

Such a format would require the same discussions as an F.A.Q. and
won't work for exactly that reason. In addition, nobody could (or
should) make use of such a format mandatory. At best, it could only be
a recommendation, and most likely one that would be ignored for the
most part.

If 10 of the 15 most
frequent posters adopted it, even many casual visitors would see that
it is expected.

Well, now this I agree with. But people are going to be as specific as
they want. My suggestion is simply for people to *use* an inclusion.
The degree of specificity is, of course, up to the person who uses the
inclusion.

The best suggestion though, would be for a few of the regulars to be
more friendly

And more importantly, for all of the trolls to drop dead from oozing,
pustulous lessions, drinking a frothy draino cocktail or excessive
masturbatory self abuse. 80)>

and focus on providing help rather than defending
freeware or putting people down. (I'm _not_ advocating making this a
generic help forum.)

Sure, I understand what you're saying and I agree. The help should
come in the form of offering solutions to software needs and not be in
the direction of 24 hour hardware/anysoftware support. Total support
is simply not what this group was created for.

However, defending the definition of freeware is fundamental to the
functioning of this group. If there IS no definition of freeware, then
why have a group called "alt.comp.freeware" if nobody really knows
what "freeware" is?
Understand, defending the definition of freeware is an entirely
different thing from defending what kinds of software are on topic and
are off topic in this group. Since it's become impossible to try to
convince others to stay on topic regarding the types of software that
this group discusses, I'm going to stop doing that for the most part.
However, since at the very least the following:

Adware
Betaware
Careware
CDWare
Commercial Software
Crippleware
Demoware
Donationware
Liteware
Nagware
Orphanware
Postcardware
Registerware
Shareware
Spyware
Time-limited software
Trialware
Viruses
Warez

aren't freeware because there's always some kind of cost involved,
it's important to keep them from ever being considered to be freeware.
________________________
Whether or not discussion of them is appropriate in this group is
another and entirely separate matter! This is a point that lots of
people can't seem to grasp.
________________________

What keeps them from being freeware is the tight, clear definition of
freeware. That's why that definition is always under attack by those
with hidden agendas and why I defend that definition. I'll never stop
doing that. And that definition (which this group agreed to LONG ago) is:

"Freeware is programming that is offered for your use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise. You may use freeware for as long as you wish."

If anybody disagrees with that, I can easily point out what the hidden
cost of any non-freeware *is*.

BTW, John, if you change the format slightly, there is no reason to
break the sig.

I never have found any iron clad rule about signature files. The
guidelines limiting their usage seem to apply mostly to people running
UNIX. Still, a good signature guideline page (probably the best) is here:

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html

BTW, I always include the horiz. lines simply to delineate the
inclusion from the rest of the message and to draw attention to it. If
the inclusion were in my signature file, the lines would be omitted
and my signature would look like this (on my system, it's four lines
long, not including the delineator):

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I never have found any iron clad rule about signature files. The
guidelines limiting their usage seem to apply mostly to people
running UNIX.

I don't understand why you say that about UNIX. Sigs are a Usenet
convention, and guidelines apply to all Usenetters.

Still, a good signature guideline page (probably the
best) is here:

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html

I agree. The mind boggles at how much good information and other
good stuff Prof. Salmi has given and/or made available over the
years.

If the inclusion were in my signature file, the lines would be
omitted and my signature would look like this (on my system, it's
four lines long, not including the delineator):

It was sent from your system as four lines, fine.

IMO, the sig is not a good place to put text that is relevant to the
post itself. I don't generally read sigs. (In fact, they are almost
invisible in my display.) If a sig contains important info users
should know before replying, something like "Please read my signature
before responding" would be good to add to the message.

 

[John Corliss]

I don't understand why you say that about UNIX. Sigs are a Usenet
convention, and guidelines apply to all Usenetters.

My understanding was that most Unix news readers cut the signature
file off after four lines and that's how the convention of four lines
started. Of course, most Windows news readers don't do that (look at
S.O.S.'s sig, for instance.)

I agree. The mind boggles at how much good information and other
good stuff Prof. Salmi has given and/or made available over the
years.


It was sent from your system as four lines, fine.

IMO, the sig is not a good place to put text that is relevant to the
post itself. I don't generally read sigs. (In fact, they are almost
invisible in my display.)

I agree. In fact, when I've used the inclusion so far, it's been in
the body of my text. It's more work to put it there though, and thus
others might not be inclined to use one (reflecting their
preferences.) Having it automatically added will help. Don't know if
there's some way to have it inserted in the body using a macro or
whatever.

If a sig contains important info users
should know before replying, something like "Please read my signature
before responding" would be good to add to the message.

I agree with that too.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

My understanding was that most Unix news readers cut the signature
file off after four lines and that's how the convention of four
lines started.

Maybe they do, I am not sure. But the four-lines-max rule of thumb is
there to encourage people not to bloat each post too much. Some guides
say five or six max, but IMO 4x80 characters is enough; if a reader
cuts it off at four, so much the better.

Of course, most Windows news readers don't do that
(look at S.O.S.'s sig, for instance.)

I try not to look at his.

 

[Gary R. Schmidt]

My understanding was that most Unix news readers cut the signature file
off after four lines and that's how the convention of four lines
started. Of course, most Windows news readers don't do that (look at
S.O.S.'s sig, for instance.)

They don't, and as far back as "readnews", they didn't.

The 4-line rule is simply good manners to reduce the waste of bandwidth
inherent in Usenet. Remember, this all started backe when we were
shuffling data around using 300bps acoustic couplers.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

 

[Vic Dura]

That is funny, I did not find any moderated alt.-groups. Perhaps I did
not search well enough... (Or my newsserver hides them from me )

My ISP newsserver indicated 70 alt...moderated groups

 

[John Corliss]

(clipped)
The 4-line rule is simply good manners to reduce the waste of bandwidth
inherent in Usenet. Remember, this all started backe when we were
shuffling data around using 300bps acoustic couplers.

Right. Also though, I did a search in Alta Vista using this:

+signature +UNIX +"four lines" +removed +usenet

and found the following:

From http://www.oit.duke.edu/unix-manual/9.html

"If you have a file in your home directory called .signature, when you
post an article using your newsreader or Pnews the first four lines of
that file are automagically attached to the end of your post. The
four-line limitation is built into the news software. Most people use
their .signature to identify their name, e-mail address, and sometimes
a witty saying or quotation."

From http://www.pubradio.org/FAQPubradioPostingRules.html

"Signatures
At the end of most articles is a small blurb called a person's
signature. In Unix this file is named .signature in the person's
login directory---it will vary for other operating systems. It exists
to provide information about how to get in touch with the
person posting the article, including their email address, phone
number, address, or where they're located. Even so,
signatures have become the graffiti of computers. People put song
lyrics, pictures, philosophical quotes, even advertisements
in their ".sigs". (Note, however, that advertising in your signature
will more often than not get you flamed until you take it
out.)
Four lines will suffice---more is just extra garbage for Usenet
sites to carry along with your article, which is supposed to be
the intended focus of the reader. Netiquette dictates limiting oneself
to this "quota" of four-- some people make signatures
that are ten lines or even more, including elaborate ASCII drawings of
their hand written signature or faces or even the space
shuttle. This is not cute, and will bother people to no end."

There are more, just don't have the time to deal with it. It looks to
me like 4 line sig files are a holdover from UNIX days, and really are
no more than tradition at this point.

 

[oldfart]

Dans son message précédent, "John Corliss" a écrit :

And that definition (which this group agreed to LONG ago) is:

"Freeware is programming that is offered for your use at no cost, monetary or
otherwise. You may use freeware for as long as you wish."

I find it a bit hard to follow your reasons if you are saying that the
above is the rule that you stick to, for instance light ware doesn't
cost you anything and it functions might be all that a person needs and
to obtain it all they have to do is download it, what is your beef with
it then, it surley is freeware isn't it, or is it that you know there
is a full version out and you reckon that should be free as well :-[.
Your list of unacceptal freeware was that a majority feeling of the
group or is it just yours??
The (therwise) part of the above is a big grey area as well don't you
think.
I'm not haveing a go at you, but I am haveing trouble with what you're
writing and the way it looks to me. :-?
Regards
oldfart

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

There are more, just don't have the time to deal with it. It looks to
me like 4 line sig files are a holdover from UNIX days, and really are
no more than tradition at this point.

I don't know how and where the "rule" originated, but
the "GNKSA - The Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval"
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/gnksa.txt> suggests:

<quote>
15) Separate signatures correctly, and don't use excessive ones

Posting software SHOULD separate any signature appended to outgoing
articles from the main text with a line containing only `-- ' ("dash
dash space"). To quote son-of-rfc1036:

<<If a poster or posting agent does append a signature to an
article, the signature SHOULD be preceded with a delimiter
line containing (only) two hyphens (ASCII 45) followed by
one blank (ASCII 32). Posting agents SHOULD limit the
length of signatures, since verbose excess bordering on
abuse is common if no restraint is imposed; 4 lines is a
common limit.>>

Hence, posting software SHOULD prevent the user from using excessively
long signatures, or at least warn the user against it. A widely
accepted standard is the so-called McQuary limit: up to 4 lines, each
up to a maximum of 80 characters.

Rationale: Being confronted with (possibly excessively long)
signatures repetitively is, or can be, annoying to many. Being able
to separate the main text and the signature clearly is important, not
only to prevent the possible mistake of misinterpreting a signature,
but also to enable automatic signature suppression for those who wish
to do so.

</quote>

Links to the "son-of-rfc1036" and other usenet standards here:
"Notes on The one stop reading center for newsreader writers."
<http://quimby.gnus.org/notes/notes.html>

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[John Corliss]

I don't know how and where the "rule" originated, but
the "GNKSA - The Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval"
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/gnksa.txt> suggests:

<quote>
15) Separate signatures correctly, and don't use excessive ones
Posting software SHOULD separate any signature appended to outgoing
articles from the main text with a line containing only `-- ' ("dash
dash space"). To quote son-of-rfc1036:

<<If a poster or posting agent does append a signature to an
article, the signature SHOULD be preceded with a delimiter
line containing (only) two hyphens (ASCII 45) followed by
one blank (ASCII 32). Posting agents SHOULD limit the
length of signatures, since verbose excess bordering on
abuse is common if no restraint is imposed; 4 lines is a
common limit.>>

Hence, posting software SHOULD prevent the user from using excessively
long signatures, or at least warn the user against it. A widely
accepted standard is the so-called McQuary limit: up to 4 lines, each
up to a maximum of 80 characters.
Rationale: Being confronted with (possibly excessively long)
signatures repetitively is, or can be, annoying to many. Being able
to separate the main text and the signature clearly is important, not
only to prevent the possible mistake of misinterpreting a signature,
but also to enable automatic signature suppression for those who wish
to do so.
</quote>

Links to the "son-of-rfc1036" and other usenet standards here:
"Notes on The one stop reading center for newsreader writers."
<http://quimby.gnus.org/notes/notes.html>

Bjorn,
I guess my saying that four line long sigs (the McQuary limit as
you pointed out, and thanks because I had lost the site that provided
that name) was no more than tradition made it look like I didn't agree
with it. Not really the case. I was only trying to point out that it's
not a rule or mandatory in any sense of the word. As usual, good
netiquette is something that depends on the person posting a message.

 

[Bob Adkins]

The (therwise) part of the above is a big grey area as well don't you
think.

I think it's all about how the end user feels about it. Some users have a
much higher tolerance for nags, missing features, etc. than others. I will
decide for myself what software I consider "free enough", and so will
others.

If a software does a great job for them and is truly free, it would just be
silly to not use it because of a minor splash screen or technicality.

As for what really constitutes Freeware, I say leave it fairly broad and let
the end user decide. Personally, I can not tolerate nags, popups, or
spyware, but I can certainly send a postcard to show my support and
gratitude for hard work. Others may differ.

Bob

 

[John Corliss]

I find it a bit hard to follow your reasons if you are saying that the
above is the rule that you stick to,

I am not saying that it's a "rule" and never have. I *DO* try to stick
to it myself. YMMV. Like the rest of my version of the F.A.Q., it was
only a guideline and a suggestion. However, it did reflect the
opinions of the majority of the group at the time.

for instance light ware doesn't
cost you anything and it functions might be all that a person needs and
to obtain it all they have to do is download it, what is your beef with
it then, it surley is freeware isn't it, or is it that you know there is
a full version out and you reckon that should be free as well :-[.

My only beef (and again, it's JMO) is with liteware that borders on
being nagware by (for instance) constantly reminding you that "This
feature is only available in the Pro version. Click here for more
info." while listing the missing feature in the menu so that you think
it's a valid feature. I hate that kind of crap and usually refuse to
use any program that does this.

Your list of unacceptal freeware was that a majority feeling of the
group or is it just yours??

At the time, it was the majority opinion of this group (and mine as well.)

The (therwise) part of the above is a big grey area as well don't you
think.

Then what's the point of having the group named "alt.comp.freeware" if
nobody even knows what freeware *is*? IMO there can be no "gray area"
regarding the definition of pure freeware.
However, there are lots of "near freeware" out there that the
majority of the group agrees is acceptable for discussion in this
group and I agree with that for the most part. On the third hand, the
group *is* unmoderated, so people will talk about whatever they like.

I'm not haveing a go at you, but I am haveing trouble with what you're
writing and the way it looks to me. :-?

Sorry you feel that way.