B
bambam
Do you honestly think warez is freeware?
S
Susan Bugher
Tiger said:
Hey - my *heart* is always in the right place - if some other portion of
my anatomy has migrated to an unusual position, *feel free* to tell me
about it.
*I* think there's a lot of difference between 2 and 3.
4? - well . . . 4 is half-way between 3 and 5
Here are some possible reasons for choosing 2 or 3;
2. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay (for comparison etc.)
It's okay to say a freeware program can't compare to Ware XYZ or I'd
like something like Ware LMN which has these features. IOW - not okay to
*discuss*.
3. ???-topic - sometimes okay to discuss
Maybe you think it's okay to recommend trialware *if* somebody has a
crisis. Maybe you think trialware is usually off-topic *but* there are
one or two programs that are just sooooooo good. Maybe you think
Abandonware is okay *if* it's legal, not okay if it's warez.
So far there are 17 posts with filled-in choices. 17 posts is not many
in a newsgroup that has around 1000 readers. (IIRC around 70 votes were
cast for IrfanView last year.) If a lot more people express their
opinions a tabulation might be worthwhile.
The question is just about whether it's okay to *discuss* something.
I tried to think of ways to get okay/ not okay for Pricelessware in
there and decided that was too complicated.
Okay Tiger - fire away.
Susan
A
Alastair Smeaton
Oops - maybe I will not piss off, but avoid any future attempt to
converse with you - I guess that might make us both happy
R
Roger Spencelayh
<disclaimer>
I wasn't sure where to jump in on this thread, so Susan, please don't
take any of this as being directed at you.
</disclaimer>
Seems to me that the people who frequent this newsgroup can be classified
into one of three groups.
1) The regulars, who generally have strong views on what constitutes
Freeware. Seems they account for around 1-2% of the readers and probably
accounting for as much as 80% of the postings (just my guess).
2) Those coming here for help, accounting for 98-99% of the readers, some
posting, some just lurking.
3) The trolls, who are here just to wind people up. Probably well less
than 1% of the readers. (Most of us seem to have better ways to spend our
lives.)
So on that basis, isn't it reasonable to assume that this newsgroup is
here to support those in the second category? They probably come here
looking for a piece of software to do a job, and either can't, or are not
prepared to, pay for it. In an ideal situation, somebody (and I'll be the
first to admit it's usually one of the 1-2% of regulars) will provide a
reference to a piece of freeware. But there are times when a piece of
freeware either isn't available or won't do the job as well as an
alternative, not strictly freeware, piece of software. Does that mean we
don't help them? If so, it doesn't say much for the spirit of
co-operation on this newsgroup. What's wrong with saying "Don't know of
any freeware, but there's ProgX on this month's SupaDupaPC mag coverdisk
this month which will do what you need"? As long as a freeware solution
is the first option, and any alternatives are stated as being Mag-, Nag-,
Beta- etc. ware, I personally don't see the problem.
Isn't that what a.c.f.d is for?
I think Pricelessware is a different matter. Pricelessware has the
advantage of being regulated, i.e. whilst we can all vote for any program
we like (in theory), somebody controls what actually goes into the list.
And for the record I do agree that Pricelessware should be for freeware
only.
Since a.c.f is un-moderated, you'll always get trolls trying to wind up
the members, like the thread a few weeks back about whether the AVG
update notices were a waste of bandwidth. When I killed the thread, there
were over 50 messages; by the time it died there was probably the
equivalent of over a year's worth of AVG update notices in the thread. I
guess the troller's objective had been achieved.
To those who keep trying to promote non-freeware, like those messages
recently posted by Mort, I thought the replies made by John Fitzsimons
were simple and to the point. Thank you John. Maybe a note in the FAQ
notice that is posted every so often should say that as the group is
un-moderated, no guarantees can be made that all posting refer only to
freeware.
Can't everybody just take a common-sense approach to requests for
freeware, and help people who come here by providing the best solution to
their requirement, rather than trying to frighten them away?
I wasn't sure where to jump in on this thread, so Susan, please don't
take any of this as being directed at you.
</disclaimer>
Seems to me that the people who frequent this newsgroup can be classified
into one of three groups.
1) The regulars, who generally have strong views on what constitutes
Freeware. Seems they account for around 1-2% of the readers and probably
accounting for as much as 80% of the postings (just my guess).
2) Those coming here for help, accounting for 98-99% of the readers, some
posting, some just lurking.
3) The trolls, who are here just to wind people up. Probably well less
than 1% of the readers. (Most of us seem to have better ways to spend our
lives.)
So on that basis, isn't it reasonable to assume that this newsgroup is
here to support those in the second category? They probably come here
looking for a piece of software to do a job, and either can't, or are not
prepared to, pay for it. In an ideal situation, somebody (and I'll be the
first to admit it's usually one of the 1-2% of regulars) will provide a
reference to a piece of freeware. But there are times when a piece of
freeware either isn't available or won't do the job as well as an
alternative, not strictly freeware, piece of software. Does that mean we
don't help them? If so, it doesn't say much for the spirit of
co-operation on this newsgroup. What's wrong with saying "Don't know of
any freeware, but there's ProgX on this month's SupaDupaPC mag coverdisk
this month which will do what you need"? As long as a freeware solution
is the first option, and any alternatives are stated as being Mag-, Nag-,
Beta- etc. ware, I personally don't see the problem.
Isn't that what a.c.f.d is for?
I think Pricelessware is a different matter. Pricelessware has the
advantage of being regulated, i.e. whilst we can all vote for any program
we like (in theory), somebody controls what actually goes into the list.
And for the record I do agree that Pricelessware should be for freeware
only.
Since a.c.f is un-moderated, you'll always get trolls trying to wind up
the members, like the thread a few weeks back about whether the AVG
update notices were a waste of bandwidth. When I killed the thread, there
were over 50 messages; by the time it died there was probably the
equivalent of over a year's worth of AVG update notices in the thread. I
guess the troller's objective had been achieved.
To those who keep trying to promote non-freeware, like those messages
recently posted by Mort, I thought the replies made by John Fitzsimons
were simple and to the point. Thank you John. Maybe a note in the FAQ
notice that is posted every so often should say that as the group is
un-moderated, no guarantees can be made that all posting refer only to
freeware.
Can't everybody just take a common-sense approach to requests for
freeware, and help people who come here by providing the best solution to
their requirement, rather than trying to frighten them away?
P
Peter Seiler
Roger Spencelayh - 26.10.2003 12:04 :
full d'accord
full d'accord
A
Aaron
How about those of us who are more like in group 1.5 or even 2.5 ?
Ah the voice of reason, but someone speaking as a memeber of group 1 ,
would question your right to "move the furniture" until you have posted a
zillion posts, while someone from group 3 would say that they are on your
side by standing up to the bullies .
You can't win
Aaron (my email is not munged!)
J
Jim Scott
Susan Bugher wrote on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:57:23 GMT
However who is there in this group who has paid for EVERY commercial
program on their computer ie they haven't loaded it from work or a friend
.....?
--
Jim
-----------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address
Visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
-----------------------------------------------
My view.
However who is there in this group who has paid for EVERY commercial
program on their computer ie they haven't loaded it from work or a friend
.....?
--
Jim
-----------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address
Visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
-----------------------------------------------
V
Vic Dura
Thanks for the kind comment Steve. I will try to emulate it in the
interest of reducing the acrimony in the group.
Best regards,
Vic
R
Roger Spencelayh
I'm not trying to move the furniture, just make it more welcoming to
those passing through.
And there's a dubious honour if ever I heard one.
You can't win
So I've noticed, which is why I generally keep quiet unless I can
provide help which no-one else has supplied.
V
Vic Dura
Good points Roger, and IMO very reasonable. I cannot understand how
anyone would disagree with it.
B
Blinky the Shark
Roger said:
For the record, that one's a tradition. It's been going on for years.
The update reminders only totally freak out one person, basically.
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
Has this been happening, or is it a purely hypothetical question?
Rather than promoting non-freeware here, what's wrong with pointing
the user to alt.comp.shareware or some other resource where help is
readily available?
G
Gord McFee
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:04:19 GMT, in
<Roger Spencelayh
wrote:
[...]
One would expect so. Presumably some of the lurkers in category 2 will
eventually become regulars (category 1). Part of the dynamic of any
newsgroup seems to be that the people who participate regularly (that is,
read and post) develop a sense of ownership because of that participation
(and I do not mean that in a negative way). After all, they are the people
who contribute the most. In my personal experience, I have received help
from those folks many times in here, and have gotten my hands on a lot of
good freeware that I would never have heard of on my own.
But what can also happen is that regulars get so used to the way the
newsgroup runs, they run the risk of overreacting to newbies or others who
want to suggest a different way of doing things. After all, things have been
fine up to now. Some unknown, who starts making all sorts of suggestions
without necessarily having been seen to "do their time", can upset people
who have busted their butts for several years and, in many ways, made the
newsgroup what it is. It's a natural reaction and I would be a hypocrite to
pretend I am above such an emotion.
I think this latest definitional issue, prompted by the Dialog controversy,
is one of those occasions. At the risk of sounding spineless, I can see
both sides of the issue. In its simplest expression, the point seems to
be that software can be free, but still not freeware according to the
accepted practices of the newsgroup. I have a little trouble with that
definition, as I have said previously, but I would be a bit of an ass to
simply diss out the regulars without considering the merits of their
argument.
If one presumes for argument's sake that 1000 readers follow this newsgroup
somewhat regularly, and a group poll on an issue results in 70 people
expressing a view, then the other 930 are poorly placed to dispute the
results out of hand. After all, they had the opportunity to "carry the day",
but chose not to exercise it. I think in such a situation, one lives with the
results until the next poll comes around. Picking nits in such a situation
really only increases noise, deflects from freeware recommendations and
creates animosity, and that is sad, because even some of the people
flaming each other the hardest seem quite intelligent and have a lot to offer.
It is even more sad to see a newsgroup such as this one, which has so
much to offer, degenerate into camps and battles.
I would be inclined to wait a few posts to see if anyone else has some
ideas. But if the facts are that there is no decent freeware alternative
available, the I think the OP deserves to know that.
<Roger Spencelayh
wrote:
[...]
One would expect so. Presumably some of the lurkers in category 2 will
eventually become regulars (category 1). Part of the dynamic of any
newsgroup seems to be that the people who participate regularly (that is,
read and post) develop a sense of ownership because of that participation
(and I do not mean that in a negative way). After all, they are the people
who contribute the most. In my personal experience, I have received help
from those folks many times in here, and have gotten my hands on a lot of
good freeware that I would never have heard of on my own.
But what can also happen is that regulars get so used to the way the
newsgroup runs, they run the risk of overreacting to newbies or others who
want to suggest a different way of doing things. After all, things have been
fine up to now. Some unknown, who starts making all sorts of suggestions
without necessarily having been seen to "do their time", can upset people
who have busted their butts for several years and, in many ways, made the
newsgroup what it is. It's a natural reaction and I would be a hypocrite to
pretend I am above such an emotion.
I think this latest definitional issue, prompted by the Dialog controversy,
is one of those occasions. At the risk of sounding spineless, I can see
both sides of the issue. In its simplest expression, the point seems to
be that software can be free, but still not freeware according to the
accepted practices of the newsgroup. I have a little trouble with that
definition, as I have said previously, but I would be a bit of an ass to
simply diss out the regulars without considering the merits of their
argument.
If one presumes for argument's sake that 1000 readers follow this newsgroup
somewhat regularly, and a group poll on an issue results in 70 people
expressing a view, then the other 930 are poorly placed to dispute the
results out of hand. After all, they had the opportunity to "carry the day",
but chose not to exercise it. I think in such a situation, one lives with the
results until the next poll comes around. Picking nits in such a situation
really only increases noise, deflects from freeware recommendations and
creates animosity, and that is sad, because even some of the people
flaming each other the hardest seem quite intelligent and have a lot to offer.
It is even more sad to see a newsgroup such as this one, which has so
much to offer, degenerate into camps and battles.
I would be inclined to wait a few posts to see if anyone else has some
ideas. But if the facts are that there is no decent freeware alternative
available, the I think the OP deserves to know that.
O
OhnO the Clown
== snip ==
OhnO the Clown sez,
I agree with Roger, and am responding with my catagory "2" vote
(regular Lurker and hoping to someday have something to contribute to the
group )
Adware: 2
Betaware: 4
CDWare: 4 (IMHO some of "us" who only dream of DSL etc. appreciate this
more than the fat-pipe people)
Commercial Software: 2
Crippleware: 2
Demo-ware: 2
Donationware: 4
Freeware: 5
Liteware: 4
Malware: 1
Nagware: 2
Orphanware/Abandonware: 3
Registerware: 3
Requestware: 3
Shareware: 2
Spyware: 1
Trialware: 2
Warez: 1 (would vote lower if "0" were an option! )
I appreciate this NG and will continue to lurk until that "magic day" I
consider myself a cat. 1 member.
OhnO the Clown sez,
I agree with Roger, and am responding with my catagory "2" vote
(regular Lurker and hoping to someday have something to contribute to the
group )
Adware: 2
Betaware: 4
CDWare: 4 (IMHO some of "us" who only dream of DSL etc. appreciate this
more than the fat-pipe people)
Commercial Software: 2
Crippleware: 2
Demo-ware: 2
Donationware: 4
Freeware: 5
Liteware: 4
Malware: 1
Nagware: 2
Orphanware/Abandonware: 3
Registerware: 3
Requestware: 3
Shareware: 2
Spyware: 1
Trialware: 2
Warez: 1 (would vote lower if "0" were an option! )
I appreciate this NG and will continue to lurk until that "magic day" I
consider myself a cat. 1 member.
O
Onno
J
John Fitzsimons
Or put another way. The "majority" represents anyone who agrees with
Vic. Even if that is only one person. The "minority" represents anyone
who disagrees with Vic. Even if that is everyone except him.
J
John Fitzsimons
< snip >
No need to be. Vic wants to grab any opportunity to suggest that the
group "in general" disagrees with definitions JC suggests. He would be
quite happy IMO to call black, white, if that would help achieve his
objective.
The IMO collective < yawn > regarding this thread by many regulars
here suggests that JC is closer to being correct than Vic.
J
John Fitzsimons
On 26 Oct 2003 02:05:38 +0800, Aaron
Yep. What he said.
Yep. What he said.
T
TechnoHippie
On 26 Oct 2003 02:05:38 +0800, Aaron
Yep. What he said.
That would be trolling ... would't it?
R
REMbranded
Yep. What he said.
Hey, how was the first debate settled? The one that your FAQ is based
upon, that is?
There is nothing wrong with getting a fresh consensus is there?
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your
customers drift off to free webmail services install your own
web gateway!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ----