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.
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.
Well, it seems to me that if this is alt.comp.freeware, and the
majority of the group agrees that what you call "near freeware" is
acceptable for discussion here, then what you are calling "near
freeware" is by majority opinion actually "freeware". Unless of
course you are saying that the majority is advocating O.T.
discussion, in which case it isn't really O.T. if you believe in
majority definitions.
I think I just made myself dizzy trying to understand your
position.
Glenn said:An example I think most of us would like to see would be comparisons.
To say the word "WordPerfect" or "Word" here would be sacrilegious but would
it be so terrible for a freebee word processor be compared with commercial
ones?
"X" will do this better than "W" but will not do so-in-so? Come on, bend a
little. This forum is full of cranks more interested in personal grudges
than allowing information enabling one to make a considered judgment for or
against an application.
Glenn
Unless of course
BINGO!!!!
»Q« said:(clipped)
The two questions "Is it freeware?" and "Is it ok to recomend in
a.c.f?" have always been separate questions, and may have different
answers. It's your desire to simplify, rather than John's position,
which has led you to the circular reasoning above.
"Ok to recommend --> is freeware ---> ok to recommend" gets us
nowhere.
John Corliss said:Thanks, »Q«, I couldn't have put it better myself.
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.
John, I'm glad your position has evolved and moderated in the last
few months.
Vic, now you know how *I* felt trying to explain that kind of s**t to
people all the time.
majority of the group agrees is acceptable for discussion in this
group and I agree with that for the most part.
John, I'm glad your position has evolved and moderated in the last few
months. Perhaps a few more on both sides will mellow as well. It
will make for an interesting test of your belief that doing so will
cause this ng to degenerate rapidly. I hope you are wrong.
I'm curious. What is the rational for a post such as:
"...ABC software is not freeware, but it's ok to discuss it
here..."
Since this is not a.c.near-freeware, is that so people know that
with the forbarence of the folks running the group, it ok until
that forbarence is withdrawn?
John Corliss said:This has always been the case. Very little is new or changed here. For
some reason, many fail to distinguish the difference between my:
1. saying that I think (or the majority of the group thinks) a type of
software isn't freeware
2. saying that I think (or the majority of the group thinks) a type of
non-freeware *is* or *isn't* on-topic.
To quote >>Q<<,
"The two questions 'Is it freeware?' and 'Is it ok to recomend in
a.c.f?' have always been separate questions, and may have different
answers."
To which I might add, "and for the same program."
Bill, my view hasn't moderated at all. I still hold pretty much the
exact same beliefs regarding freeware, what it is and what isn't
freeware. I've just given up on the F.A.Q. (but not for the reason
you'd expect, and I'll keep that to myself.)
People are going to do what they're going to do in an unmoderated
group. I'm tired of being the target of trolls and minority view
holders because I was defending the F.A.Q. In fact, here's a kind of
example of what my attitude is anymore:
________________________________
My nephew refuses to quit smoking.
I've tried and tried to get him to do so and he always tells me what I
want to hear (that he's "trying real hard" to quit.)
I finally wised up to this, and told him, "It'll make me feel just
as good to live long enough to see you regret not having listened to
me as it would to see you actually do so and quit."
BillR said:Perhaps because of what you actually wrote?
I was unclear. I was primarily referring to your penchant for often
rudely (IMO) and sometimes incorrectly (IMO) policing posts and
assuming the worst about many posters. (I, of course, would never do
any of those three things.) I'll settle for that.
That must be very frustrating. I'm pretty rabid about that myself.
My brother and I had a few bitter arguments on that very topic. I
failed to change his behavior, of course.
Not really clear exactly what you're referring to. The F.A.Q. or my
postings? I do know that I've never personally advocated only
discussion about pure freeware.
You replied to a message of mine which contained that text of John
Corliss'. Not a big big deal, but stripping the attribution and
reducing the number of > quote indicators kinda makes it look like
it was my text.