printing ticket

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ninou
  • Start date Start date
N

Ninou

Hello
Do you know a free software to print ticket or coupon for lottery with
serial number ?
Thanks
 
jo said:
bob-au wrote:




Not really freeware then is it?
Click to expand...

Well, all the software discussed in this newsgroup requires a
*computer*, which usually isn't free either...

This statement might seem silly to some, but I see a lot of
hair-splitting in this newsgroup about what is and isn't freeware, and
what are and are not appropriate topics for discussion. I myself got in
a disagreement with one poster in another thread because I recommended a
piece of software that is free but requires a $10 PCI card in order to
work, whereas all of the so-called "freeware" alternatives that had been
suggested in the thread would require one to have a new, fast (and
probably expensive) processor in order to obtain the same level of
performance I achieve with my 400 MHz PII using the software in question
along with the PCI card. So tell me: Which solution comes closer to
being in the true spirit of this newsgroup?

Getting back to the matter at hand: Bob-au was trying to help the
original poster. In doing so, he suggested a solution that would indeed
be free, as long as the original poster already had M________ P_______
(name censored to protect those of a delicate disposition) on his
computer. Is this really all that different than recommending a "free"
program that requires one to have splurged on the latest and greatest
new processor in order for it to run properly?

I can understand wanting to keep references to commercial software out
of this newsgroup - I really can. I just question the value of pouncing
on someone who is genuinely trying to be helpful, at the slightest
suggestion of a mention of software that doesn't meet the accepted
definition of "freeware." It seems nerdy to me. Come on, folks; lighten
up! Put some of that energy you expend on whistle-blowing into actually
trying to *help* people who have questions...
 
Joe said:
I can understand wanting to keep references to commercial software out
of this newsgroup - I really can. I just question the value of pouncing
on someone who is genuinely trying to be helpful, at the slightest
suggestion of a mention of software that doesn't meet the accepted
definition of "freeware." It seems nerdy to me. Come on, folks; lighten
Click to expand...

Just like with any newsgroup, you never know when someone is going to
"pounce" on you, do you Joe? Remember ansermetniac from 2 days ago with
you over in the beatles group?

I myself, have made suggestions in this newsgroup of non-freeware
alternatives and nobody had "pounced" on me. In the right situations it
can be suggested, but I would not make a habit out it.
 
I can understand wanting to keep references to commercial software
out of this newsgroup - I really can. I just question the value of
pouncing on someone who is genuinely trying to be helpful,
Click to expand...

Jo didn't "pounce" on anyone here.
 
»Q« said:
Jo didn't "pounce" on anyone here.
Click to expand...

Correct. I forgot to mention, just because someone points out that
software is not freeware, that does not constitute pouncing. This IS a
freeware group and that is what the criteria is for recommendations.
 
Thank you Joe,

Jo is right about it not being freeware as such.
but if it can help ninou. at no cost and legal. All the best.

bob-au
 
I can understand wanting to keep references to commercial software out
of this newsgroup - I really can. I just question the value of pouncing
on someone who is genuinely trying to be helpful, at the slightest
suggestion of a mention of software that doesn't meet the accepted
definition of "freeware."
Click to expand...

IMO there is no "accepted" definition of freeware in this NG. Each
particular variation of *ware has various degrees of acceptance. The
most stringent definitions are by no means generally accepted, which
is why there is so much bickering about it.
 
Correct. I forgot to mention, just because someone points out that
software is not freeware, that does not constitute pouncing.
Click to expand...

Can't someone write an automated FreePounce or something?
 
Come on, folks; lighten
up! Put some of that energy you expend on whistle-blowing into actually
trying to *help* people who have questions...
Click to expand...

You seem to be in the wrong newsgroup. You seem to think it is called
alt.help . It isn't. It is called alt.comp.freeware . People come here
for freeware solutions.

Also, a sure fire way to avoid criticism for posting non freeware
solutions is not to make them.

Shouldn't be hard for you to understand if you try hard.
 
John said:
You seem to be in the wrong newsgroup. You seem to think it is called
alt.help . It isn't. It is called alt.comp.freeware . People come here
for freeware solutions.

Also, a sure fire way to avoid criticism for posting non freeware
solutions is not to make them.

Shouldn't be hard for you to understand if you try hard.
Click to expand...

I resent the hell out of sarcasm. Understand that?!

Bob-au's suggested solution to the original poster was freeware. What's
the problem?
 
(e-mail address removed) wrote in
OK; maybe "pouncing" isn't quite the right word. How about
"policing"?
Click to expand...

Nope, "policing" isn't right either. I've restored the quote from
Jo that you are trying to characterize, along with the context, in
case you want to keep trying. ;)
 
»Q« said:
(e-mail address removed) wrote in



Nope, "policing" isn't right either. I've restored the quote from
Jo that you are trying to characterize, along with the context, in
case you want to keep trying. ;)
Click to expand...
I guess you, and those who side with you, will just have to agree to
disagree with me and with Ninou, the original poster who expressed his
appreciation for Bob-au's suggestion, and leave it at that.
 
I guess you, and those who side with you, will just have to agree
to disagree with me
Click to expand...

I disagree that there was any "policing", yes. You haven't made any case
to support the notion that there was.
and with Ninou
Click to expand...

Ninou didn't say anything about agreeing with your characterizations of
Jo's post. AFAIK, I'm not in any disagreement with Ninou.
 
jo said:
Then you will have as much trouble understanding 'On Topic' in the
alt.sarcasm hierarchy as you have here.
Click to expand...

Good one, Jo. Heh.
No it wasn't. It was an add on for a buyware app.




See above.
Click to expand...

Bob-au's suggestion was indeed, as you say, an add-on for a buyware app
- a *free* add-on. (By the way, I direct your attention to the original
poster's response: "thanks for this suggestion." Apparently he or she
was happy with this solution, even if you aren't.)

Now, picture this scenario: Mr. X owns a computer that came pre-loaded
with Linux. He has never purchased a license for Windows. He is looking
for free software to accomplish a certain task, so he (perhaps
misguidedly) posts his request in alt.comp.freeware. Mr. Y sees Mr. X's
post, and replies that there is a free program that can do exactly what
Mr. X wants, but it is only available for Windows, not for Linux.

This is, in essence, the exact same situation we have seen in this
thread: A poster recommends a solution that, in and of itself, is free,
yet requires one to have on one's computer another program (in this
case, Microsoft Windows) that is *not* free. Possible reactions from
readers of alt.comp.freeware might include the following:

1. "Well, this advice doesn't help Mr. X very much, but hey, maybe *I*
could use this freeware on my computer, since I have purchased a license
for Microsoft Windows."

2. "Well, too bad that my computer runs Linux, and this software only
works on a buyware operating system, MS Windows, but if it's the only
software I can find to do the job I want to do, and it's *sort of* free,
maybe it's worth it for me to invest in a license for Windows. I'll have
to think about this..."

2. "Not really freeware then is it? TWEEEEEET!!"

Jo, I understand "On Topic" perfectly well. Do you understand the term
"gray areas"?
 
»Q« said:
I disagree that there was any "policing", yes. You haven't made any case
to support the notion that there was.
Click to expand...

In case I haven't already made this clear...

There are situations wherein it is not cut-and-dried whether or not a
given piece of software could be considered "freeware." I have described
two examples in other posts within this thread. In such cases, I tend to
err on the side of inclusiveness, whereas some others tend to err on the
side of exclusiveness - as did Jo in this instance. I consider this
literal interpretation of the definition of "freeware," wherein it's
more important to step in and cry "foul" if one perceives that a program
might not meet the strictest possible definition, than to present a
solution that might actually help someone, to be "policing."
 
Back
Top