Ad Beta CD Comm Cripp Demo Dona Free Lite
2.3 3.5 2.5 1.8 2.2 1.6 4.3 5.0 4.6
Mal Nag Orph Reg Requ Shar Spy Trial Warez:
1.1 2.0 3.1 3.6 3.8 1.4 1.1 1.8 0.9
Conclusion 1:
The readers of the group want to allow a broader variation than
"strictly freeware".
Conclusion 2:
Programs which are highly regarded and recommended have gotten low
numbers because of strict rules.
For example Proxomitron, which strictly seen is abandonware, has got a
3.1 in the Orph column.
Crippleware has got a very low rating of only 2.2
We can think of Forte Free Agent, which earlier was distributed as a
separate program, and would have gotten 5.0 as freeware, now has only
2.2 just because it is distributed in the same file as Agent, I think.
It is still the same program, it is still one of the best offline news
readers available, it is still free to use, but now the group calls it
"crippled" and does not want it mentioned other than "brief mention
sometimes okay (for comparison etc.)".
Betaware, not time limited, can be just as good as "strict freeware".
Some of the best programs I use are freeware betas.
There is adware where the usefulness is very high compared to the
negative factor of some small ad in the corner or in the help file.
And there are programs of all categories which are absolutely useless
for some reason.
I just want to show how strange results we get when we use strict
rules instead of some common sense.
Strict rules are for control freaks and preussian officers.
Use your brains instead, and think of usefulness instead of strict
rules.
