*POLL* acf webring (does it help?)

[status]

The opinions of this group have recently been shown, both in the
recent poll and by individual messages.

The rules which were created years ago are clearly antiquated and do
no longer express the views of the current readers and participators.

As far as I can see we have one group of people who are struggling to
keep the old rules, and another group of readers who do not want the
old rules and do not want to see all the bickering about them.

These two groups seem to be equal in numbers at the moment.

Conclusion: There is no consensus about the old rules in the group
today. The recent poll and messages from many individuals express the
will of the current users of the group.

The old rules are irrelevant today. If we were to formulate the
current will of the group in rules they would not look like the old
rules.

That's what I've been trying to tell everyone. Esp. Since Henk de
Jong & John Corliss both took down their own websites.

 

[status]

Hope this doesn't cause offense, but I believe that if you are not
willing to abide by the definitions in the ACF FAQ as it stands, you
should not use ACF in the name of your webring. Please change the
name.

no offense. but why should i change the name ?

 

[status]

Randy Bard <[email protected]> schreef in



Seconded

Why should I change the name when no one wants to update the FAQ ?

 

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

[fu set to a.c.f]

It's always best when programs are marked "Adware,Nagware" and
so on, but there are heaps of sites that don't make it clear.
Sometimes you just have to take that chance and download a
program.

If you can wait an hour or two for an answer, you don't have to DL and
take that chance. Posting here asking whether there are nags or ads in
any given purported freeware will usually bring a quick responce.

 

[Henk de Jong]

(e-mail address removed) ([email protected]) schreef in

That's what I've been trying to tell everyone. Esp. Since
Henk de Jong & John Corliss both took down their own websites.

Sorry, but I really have to disappoint you. Taking down my
website had NOTHING to do with FAQ's, things happening in ACF or
whatever. I took my site down for strictly private and personal
reasons.

Nevertheless, I still appreciate your initiative to create a
webring for freeware-authors. I still think it is a great idea.
But when you use the name of ACF, the least thing you could do,
also for your visitors, some unfamiliar with ACF, is directing
them to a place where they can read what ACF stands for. And IMHO
the FAQ on the site of John F. is the best place to start.

But, I have to be honest in this, directing those folks to the
FAQ, means that you and the freeware-authors in the webring also
take notice of the meaning of 'freeware'.

I hope that this doesn't discourage you from running the webring.
It gives freeware-authors a possibility to promote their programs
in an easy way. And it gives visitors the opportunity to look for
and find good 'freeware'-products. I hope you continue your
efforts, but it can also give you and others problems, when we
leave the definition of 'freeware' as stated in the FAQ. When we
do it your way, the border between what is freeware and what is
not (and that includes warez) becomes very thin. (For instance:
time-limited beta software can never be 'freeware').

 

[Tiger]

I guess the string "alt.comp.freeware" is public domain, so there
was nothing to stop you. But IMO creating a webring that will no
doubt be associated with this newsgroup should have been a
decision of the newgroup.


For example, that would have been a good thing to post before you
unilaterally created the ring and started sending out invitations.

I've snipped all you wrote about your agenda, but that stuff is
enough to keep me from contributing to running your webring.

Same here.

 

[Randy Bard]

Why should I change the name when no one wants to update the FAQ ?

Because by using the name, you implicitly accept and endorse the FAQ.
If you don't like the FAQ, work to change it, or start your own forum
with its own FAQ.

 

[Randy Bard]

no offense. but why should i change the name ?

Because it borders on false advertising. As stated above, your use of
the name 'acf' implies acceptance and endorsement of this newsgroup's
FAQ. If you don't like the FAQ, work to change it; or start your own
newsgroup, with its own FAQ that does suit you, then start a webring
named after your newsgroup.

 

[Vegard Krog Petersen]

Agreed.

Another agreed.

 

[Vic Dura]

The opinions of this group have recently been shown, both in the
recent poll and by individual messages.

The rules which were created years ago are clearly antiquated and do
no longer express the views of the current readers and participators.

As far as I can see we have one group of people who are struggling to
keep the old rules, and another group of readers who do not want the
old rules and do not want to see all the bickering about them.

These two groups seem to be equal in numbers at the moment.

Conclusion: There is no consensus about the old rules in the group
today. The recent poll and messages from many individuals express the
will of the current users of the group.

The old rules are irrelevant today. If we were to formulate the
current will of the group in rules they would not look like the old
rules.

Ditto.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Ditto.

Maybe it is time to set up a new FAQ based on the latest vote.
A FAQ that reflects the current views of the group.
It could be based on your message with average numbers.

You post here regularly, so why don't you put a link to the new FAQ in
your sig? Obviously there are a lot of people who have slightly
different views than some of the oldtimers, but the oldtimers are
heard a lot. We need a FAQ which better reflects the views of other
readers too.

I would do it but I don't have any suitable web space right now, and I
don't post regularly. Maybe you can take care of it?

 

[Fly Bye Nite]

i created the acf webring to not only serve the readers of acf
but those generally surfing the web for freeware.

Sort of like a "marriage" of the web and newsgroups? It's just a
webring? Then why do folks need to "join"? What information is
required to "join"? Why is "joining" an "acf webring" better than
simply subscribing to acf? Shucks, this is where all the experience
abides! Why doesn't everybody simply co-ordinate out of the
newsgroup? It's not like you need a formal release to publish a link
- most of the time anyway. Most of the premise operates on courtesy
and collective consensus most of time. And that seems like a good
thing - most of the time.

The part about the anti-FAQ seems a little convuluted. FAQ am some
good thing in most cases? It's not like you have a felony record if
you break it every now and then? At least there's a set of generally
agreed upon guidelines, even though it gets a little trampled in
certain places from time to time. It, within and of itself, keeps
the discussion active so certain malevolent or shady operators don't
actively or consistently try to pawn-off cripple-ware - spyware -
backdoor-malware - take-pikktures-of-your-mamma-ware, and the like,
as legitimate freeware, by acf's generally accepted definition and
parameters. At least there's a point at which someone or a group of
like-minded-old-timers will come out and vocally object to an abuse.
Then it's really up to the group to agree or to disagree.

I think the OP may find themselves a little misguided, if the written
precepts are examined honestly and thoroughly. The original article
seems a little arbitrary and close-ended, at best. At worst, it
could be perceived as someone acting out a resentment and expousing a
"my way or the highway" type suggestion.

IMHO, I doubt very seriously if any individual or small group of
individuals is going to "divide" (or "unite") acf to any significant
degree - off of it's usual datum plane - no matter what the
intention, thought and effort may be.

The FAQ in acf is constantly under discussion - for as long as I've
been around here (which is a couple of days, now). And it's an OPEN
discussion and revision process. And certain of the cadre have
selflessly devoted great amounts of efforts and time and resources in
maintaining the integrity of the group - to all of our mutual benefit
as well as to the greater benefit of the computing community as a
whole!!! This group has for many years exemplified the true spirit
of the usenet experience and community. Bad and good being
ephemerally present. This is instantly evinced as fact by the OP's
article and subsequent discussion.

So, the fact that someone is starting a website to promote a webring
supporting freeware is certainly commendable - but if it's an "acf"
webring it's going to have to have the sanction of acf, and abide by
the "acf" charter and FAQ's... Or else it's not an "acf" webring -
it's merely another "freeware" webring. Or more accurately, without
some sanction to definitions, it's more of a "webring claiming to
promote alleged freeware."

And there's certainly nothing wrong with that!

And without some kind of guidelines and boundries (to wit: an FAQ or
TOS document - unless someone's got some KGB moonlighting as
enforcers...) it sounds like an open invitation to anarchy, lunacy,
and terrorism.

Sounds good to me! (Even though "free love" sounds just a little bit
better 8^)) Where do we sign up?

It just can't truly be called an "acf webring" without the approval
of the group. That's not difficult, is it?

(Oh, incidentally, to elucidate your analogy with a little allegory:
the way Gov. Elect Arnold won his issue was by 1) recruiting many,
many people to his point of view and 2) by persuading them to action
(like "becoming involved"; joining the group and voting) and 3)
prevailing in a democratic process. NOT by winning one debate! And
NOT by declaring he was taking over the governor's mansion whether
anybody liked it or not.)

So, in conclusion: HOORAY for your efforts in creating a "webring";
but you can't simply "steal" the label "acf" without biting off much
more trouble than any possible profit which might be realized by
simply respecting time-honored conventions - much like Ahhhnuld did!


Best regards.

 

[status]

I guess the string "alt.comp.freeware" is public domain, so there was
nothing to stop you. But IMO creating a webring that will no doubt be
associated with this newsgroup should have been a decision of the
newgroup.

The FAQ isn't.

For example, that would have been a good thing to post before you
unilaterally created the ring and started sending out invitations.

The FAQ wasn't.

I've snipped all you wrote about your agenda, but that stuff is enough
to keep me from contributing to running your webring.

Whatever.

 

[status]

Because it borders on false advertising. As stated above, your use of
the name 'acf' implies acceptance and endorsement of this newsgroup's
FAQ. If you don't like the FAQ, work to change it; or start your own
newsgroup, with its own FAQ that does suit you, then start a webring
named after your newsgroup.

i never asked anyone to endorse the webring. and no one told me i had
to accept the faq as gospel either.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Well, I've looked at all 11 sites as of 20031029 23:10 AEST.

rtdos - has one free chat program, in Java, and a games section under
construction. Free, but not much chop.

Remco's Screensavers - didn't go past the first page.

Geek of the Week - 4 downloads, 2 start up screens, 2 videos.

free software downloads - a good-looking list of links for audio stuff,
if I had the time and the inclination , I trace a bit further.

Key Designs - has some of their own free programs and links to others,
but again, not much chop.

Cree8 - purports to have a "browseable list" of free software, first
category "Audio/Video" had 0 entries, I looked at "desktop", it had 4,
but empty slots like that mean I won't go back.

Numbware - 3 free programs, 1 utility and 2 games.

Decent Downloads - I have to say this is one of those web-pages that
belongs on a "how noto to do it" list. Ugh! And it's by a fellow
Aussie, must be from up north and the sun's burnt their eyes out! Lots
of stuff listed, but I had to close it before I went blind.

Brandon's Dos Games - had to agree not to re-sell what's there, no
problem with that, but the framed pages don't exist. Non-frames works,
sort of, but underlying pages aren't found. After 2 404s, I won't be back.

Home Budget Software - Only 1 free program, other 3 are pay-ware,
freebie appears to be a currency converter. Bye bye.

Inet SOftware - have to register to download, no real problem with that,
but the site is an abomination, so strike that one.

So, 1 good site, a couple of okay sites, I'd say that it's a complete
failure as of now.

I also concur with Blinky "it's really an rtdos webring" not an ACF webring.

I'd say your findings, above, intentionally left intact as relevant
data, imply that ACF should put as much distance between it and this webring
as possible. The Pricelessware site is excellent and ACF itself is good --
even though it's deteriorating with the weakening of standards. Let's not
drag it down any further.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

"rtdos" <[email protected]> schreef in



When you are not conforming to any one micro definition of
freeware, how do you define 'freeware' for the webring?

Besides that, when you want the webring to carry the name of ACF,
the least thing you could do is to link to the FAQ of this
newsgroup on John F's pages, so visitors can also read about this
newsgroup, and to learn about 'freeware'.

....and to learn that ACF isn't really connected with the webring, and
that the name was simply ripped off to try an legitimize the webring.
That should be stated prominently in the ACF FAQ.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Henk de Jong <[email protected]> schreef in



By the way, my remark doesn't mean that I won't support a webring
for freeware sites. I think it's a great idea, and I hope that a
lot of freeware authors will join this ring. Only, when you call
it the ACF-webring, it should be according the rules in the FAQ.

It shouldn't be called an ACF webring in the first place. It's the
rtdos webring.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Tiger wrote:

Another agreed.

More agreement.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

No offense taken here. The problem is that the FAQ is flawed in
many ways. There are those of us that simply do not agree with
the definitions as they are.

Perhaps you can find another group, that better represents your beliefs.

Best wishes with that.

 

[Tiger]

...and to learn that ACF isn't really connected with the webring,
and that the name was simply ripped off to try an legitimize the
webring. That should be stated prominently in the ACF FAQ.

Unless the webring name is changed immediately, I agree. Note in the
faq and on the pricelessware pages that that silly webring has nothing
to do with either pricelessware nor acf. Nothing.