Ware Types - Question for the group

[Bjorn Simonsen]

Please place the number that best expresses your opinion after the ware
name.

Adware: 2
Betaware: 3 (if freeware promised and no reason to doubt it)
CDWare: 2
Commercial Software: 2
Crippleware: 2
Demo-ware: 1
Donationware: 3
Freeware: 5
Liteware: 4
Malware: 1
Nagware: 2
Orphanware/Abandonware: 3
Registerware: 2
Requestware: 3
Shareware: 2
Spyware: 1
Trialware: 1
Warez: 1

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed):

[...]
I think discussions can include any of the above. Warnings should be
given when appropiate, but I have no qualms about a consenting adult
_choosing_ to use adware. The same for other wares. [...]
As a group my thought is that we should try to find the best tool that
is available. If a specific task has no pure alternatives evident then
I see nothing wrong with pointing out program x does this, but is
nagware. Rather than have multiple threads arguing the mention of
nagware the hope is someone out there will offer program y, which is
postcardware, and someone else offers program z, which is complete
freeware. Then the OP will have a selection of programs and the
downsides of each listed neatly in a thread.

In other words, consider the mention of a less than freeware program a
starting point; not for a lengthy debate, but for alternatives. Almost
every problem has a freeware solution of some sort. It's just a matter
of working together to find the best solution and to remain silent in
many cases to prevent thread eruption. There is a wealth of knowledge
here, surely this can work.

[...]

REMbranded, the way I dealt with this personally is I handed myself an
"alternate version of reality." In the original thing, I substituted the
word "discuss" with the word "recommend." Offtopic to recommend a payware/
spyware etc solution.

To have "discuss" as OT instead of "recommend," then that gets much
more extreme than the 7 dirty words, 'cause at least with the dirty words
situation, you can still nod to the context, that eg sexual activity is
part of the world.

For some types of scenarios wrt how self-censoring context is quite
defeating with regards to discussing freeware, you've already touched
into with your post...

And just personally here, I'm not going to engage this further, and
shouldn't have even done this post.

The number of "newsgroup politics" threads around here exceeds the number
of actual freeware discussions by about 100x.

Newsgroups politics discussions are inherently alluring, sure. However,
I'd much prefer reading when those energies go instead into thoughtful
contributions about freeware programs.

 

[tlshell]

what about the option for, (Dont discuss this ware in this group at all)?

If you wanna be a net nazi, be my guest, but IMHO, that option isn't
needed. The most restrictive option would be to limit to warnings only
and that seems reasonable to me.

 

[bambam]

1. off-topic - discuss only when a warning is needed
2. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay (for comparison etc.)
3. ???-topic - sometimes okay to discuss
4. on-topic - usually okay to discuss
5. on-topic - always okay to discuss

Adware: 2
Betaware: 4
CDWare: 3
Commercial Software: 2
Crippleware: 2
Demo-ware: 2
Donationware: 3
Freeware: 5
Liteware: 4
Malware: 1
Nagware: 2
Orphanware/Abandonware: 3
Registerware: 3
Requestware: 3
Shareware: 2
Spyware: 1
Trialware: 2
Warez: 1

 

[Vic Dura]

As far as I'm concerned if it is free, legal and useful and
above all, the benefits outweigh any downside then I'm
happy to discuss any software. Although I consider it
important to include a warning of limitations and issues etc,
so everyone can use their own judgement.

Some people here seem to object to allowing people to use there own
judgement.

 

[Vic Dura]

We need to lower the level of aggression and rudeness in usenet. Think
about all the nice people and children who are coming in here, get
scared or do not like the atmosphere and turn away again.

Well said Roger!

 

[Vic Dura]

1. off-topic - discuss only when a warning is needed

2. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay (for comparison etc.)
3. ???-topic - sometimes okay to discuss
4. on-topic - usually okay to discuss
5. on-topic - always okay to discuss

This has been a very enlightening thread. Thanks for starting it
Susan.

I'm amazed at how little agreement there is as to what is on/off
topic. It's no wonder that there is such a great deal of contention.

So much for the control-freak claim that the people in this NG have
agreed on the definitions, covenants, conditions and restrictions in
"the FAQ".

 

[Susan Bugher]

This has been a very enlightening thread. Thanks for starting it
Susan.

I'm amazed at how little agreement there is as to what is on/off
topic. It's no wonder that there is such a great deal of contention.

I'm amazed that your perception is so different from mine.

What has struck me was the *consistency* of the results. The top to
bottom ranking of the wares is very similar from post to post.

*I* see much agreement or near agreement. The group will probably never
agree on *the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin* but
IMO the posts show a *broad* consensus.

JMHO

Susan

 

[Vic Dura]

I'm amazed that your perception is so different from mine.

Yes, fundamentally different perceptions. This looks like a good
research project for a psychology grad student.

What has struck me was the *consistency* of the results. The top to
bottom ranking of the wares is very similar from post to post.

*I* see much agreement or near agreement. The group will probably never
agree on *the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin* but
IMO the posts show a *broad* consensus.

JMHO

Certainly a valid opinion.

 

[Aaron]

Well said Roger!

Ditto. I'm wondering what the point of this whole thread is, besides to
start yet another round of debates that cannot be resolved.








Aaron (my email is not munged!)

 

[Aaron]

I'm amazed that your perception is so different from mine.

What has struck me was the *consistency* of the results. The top to
bottom ranking of the wares is very similar from post to post.

*I* see much agreement or near agreement. The group will probably never
agree on *the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin* but
IMO the posts show a *broad* consensus.

Yes, but it's the small disagreements that are starting the problems.

Take betaware, no one has scored it below 3, and many have scored it at
5. 3 is defined as "off-topic sometimes okay to discuss" , but if it's
okay to discuss, why call it off-topic? What do you mean by "Sometimes" ?
Once? , Twice?

Even if we managed to poll every single person who has posted or will
post on alt.comp.freeware and get an average of 4.234 , or 3.852 or
whatever, what does this mean?

I'm with Roger when he said

"We already know that there are many categories which are more or less
freeware according to one or another definition.
Too much bandwidth and time is wasted on these discussions, and they
destroy the atmosphere.

Unfortunately some people have nothing against a constant bickering
and have strong convictions they think it is very important to defend.
Strong convictions, a strong need to defend some ideals, and readiness
for violence is what terrorists are made of.

Unfortunately this means that the heavy minded people often think that
they are in the majority, because in their favorite places they often
are the ones who are heard and seen more than others."

This goes for the people attacking and defending JC.

Susan

Aaron (my email is not munged!)

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Vic Dura wrote:

I'm amazed that your perception is so different from mine.

What has struck me was the *consistency* of the results. The top to
bottom ranking of the wares is very similar from post to post.

*I* see much agreement or near agreement. The group will probably never
agree on *the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin* but
IMO the posts show a *broad* consensus.

They always have. Vic interprets that consensus as immaterial because
he doesn't happen to like it.

 

[Tiger]

They always have. Vic interprets that consensus as immaterial
because he doesn't happen to like it.

Perhaps...but the options gave Vic exactly what he was looking for...a
method to measure *differences.* Problem is, the differences, at least
in a couple of cases (what's the qualitative difference between 2 and 3
above?) simply aren't meaningful. Throw in 4 and the qualitative
difference increases only *slightly* (as someone else asked, what
defines "sometimes" or "usually?"). I guess that's why I didn't vote.
Hey, my undergrad degree was in Sociology...I did this kind of stuff
for years.

BTW, this is not meant as a slam at Susan. I know she was only trying
to get at the crux of the matter. I actually think the more *telling*
"poll" was Vic's attempt to gauge the desire for a re-definition of
freeware. Clearly, the outcome of that thread was not in his
favor...which is probably why he isn't using that to try and bolster
his case. He'd make a good spin doctor for some politian though.

--
Tiger

"Zero is where the fun starts
There is too much counting everywhere else."
- Hafiz

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Perhaps...but the options gave Vic exactly what he was looking for...a
method to measure *differences.* Problem is, the differences, at least
in a couple of cases (what's the qualitative difference between 2 and 3
above?) simply aren't meaningful. Throw in 4 and the qualitative
difference increases only *slightly* (as someone else asked, what
defines "sometimes" or "usually?"). I guess that's why I didn't vote.

I held off, too. Eventually, I cribbed someone else's numbers and said
use these for me. They were close enough.

Hey, my undergrad degree was in Sociology...I did this kind of stuff
for years.

I think for my first degree I had a soc minor.

BTW, this is not meant as a slam at Susan. I know she was only trying
to get at the crux of the matter. I actually think the more *telling*
"poll" was Vic's attempt to gauge the desire for a re-definition of
freeware. Clearly, the outcome of that thread was not in his
favor...which is probably why he isn't using that to try and bolster
his case. He'd make a good spin doctor for some politian though.

Consensus has *never* been in his favor. That's his problem. That
leads to his second problem: nothing left to do but be a stalker.

 

[Vic Dura]

I actually think the more *telling*
"poll" was Vic's attempt to gauge the desire for a re-definition of
freeware. Clearly, the outcome of that thread was not in his
favor...

I agree. There is clearly very little support for the simplified
definition I proposed.

which is probably why he isn't using that to try and bolster
his case.

No, just too little support for it.

He'd make a good spin doctor for some politian though.

I wish! Those spin-docs make big bucks!

 

[Steve H]

I agree. There is clearly very little support for the simplified
definition I proposed.


No, just too little support for it.

All due credit and respect to you for that admission Vic.

Regards,

 

[Alastair Smeaton]

BTW, this is not meant as a slam at Susan. I know she was only trying
to get at the crux of the matter. I actually think the more *telling*
"poll" was Vic's attempt to gauge the desire for a re-definition of
freeware.

I wonder though Tiger - a fair number of people seem to have "voted"
in this thread - maybe there are a few who would want the definition
widened - at least to include dialogue and other betaware.......

 

[Alastair Smeaton]

from Tiger

Agree with Tiger here - good intentions from Susan, but how will it be
measured ? Will it be measured ? Will it affect the FAQ ? Interesting
to see people's opinions though - so thanks Susan.

From Blinky>
I held off, too. Eventually, I cribbed someone else's numbers and said
use these for me. They were close enough.

Not sure how copying someone else's votes, no matter how close they
are to your opinions helps here - are you sitting on the fence ? If
they match your feelings, they are your votes

 

[Tiger]

I wonder though Tiger - a fair number of people seem to have
"voted" in this thread - maybe there are a few who would want the
definition widened - at least to include dialogue and other
betaware.......

I think most people go by the *spirit* of the definition...after all,
this is an unmoderated group. Occasionally some Dialogue-like program
appears and I don't think the vast majority have a problem with
discussing it. If there's no clear consensus on whether a program is
truly freeware or not, the discussion of it cannot be off-topic. Of
course, some will say a 60/40 split on the question *is* a clear
consensus and some will say it isn't. That's just the type of
situation that we must deal with in unmoderated groups. I cannot see a
way around it. I'm not sure how many people even participate in this
group on a regular basis...but personally, I'd say if 7 or 8 people
agree *against* the majority, then we don't have a consensus. But hey,
that's just me.

--
Tiger

"Zero is where the fun starts
There is too much counting everywhere else."
- Hafiz

 

[Blinky the Shark]

On 25 Oct 2003 20:55:40 GMT, Blinky the Shark <[email protected]>
wrote:

Agree with Tiger here - good intentions from Susan, but how will it be
measured ? Will it be measured ? Will it affect the FAQ ? Interesting
to see people's opinions though - so thanks Susan.

Not sure how copying someone else's votes, no matter how close they
are to your opinions helps here - are you sitting on the fence ? If
they match your feelings, they are your votes

I voted. What the **** do you want? See, once more: I VOTED. Now,
piss off.