Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
please start another thread.

Question: should nagware be considered to be appropriate for discussion
in this group?

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

John Corliss wrote:
> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question: should nagware be considered to be appropriate for discussion
> in this group?
>

I am going to cancel this OP and re-phrase the question more carefully.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:51:17 -0700, John Corliss
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote Re Re: Call for a vote.:

>John Corliss wrote:
>> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
>> please start another thread.
>>
>> Question: should nagware be considered to be appropriate for discussion
>> in this group?
>>
>
>I am going to cancel this OP and re-phrase the question more carefully.

IMO A re-phrase would be more helpful if it specifies the *degree* of
Nag. Some programs have a very unobtrusive and benign "nag" that is
not annoying in the least, e.g. the old Opera Browser. Technically it
was Nagware, but it was not an objectionable Nag to most people.
--
To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.

On 29 Apr 2006, Vic Dura wrote

> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:51:17 -0700, John Corliss
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote Re Re: Call for a vote.:
>
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is
>>> called for, please start another thread.
>>>
>>> Question: should nagware be considered to be appropriate for
>>> discussion in this group?
>>>
>>
>> I am going to cancel this OP and re-phrase the question more
>> carefully.
>
> IMO A re-phrase would be more helpful if it specifies the
> *degree* of Nag. Some programs have a very unobtrusive and
> benign "nag" that is not annoying in the least, e.g. the old
> Opera Browser. Technically it was Nagware, but it was not an
> objectionable Nag to most people.

Another good example was the nag screen for Polder Backup -- it
appeared very infrequently, and asked for donations to the animal
shelter charity the author supported.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Vic Dura wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
>>> please start another thread.
>>>
>>> Question: should nagware be considered to be appropriate for discussion
>>> in this group?
>>>
>> I am going to cancel this OP and re-phrase the question more carefully.
>
> IMO A re-phrase would be more helpful if it specifies the *degree* of
> Nag. Some programs have a very unobtrusive and benign "nag" that is
> not annoying in the least, e.g. the old Opera Browser. Technically it
> was Nagware, but it was not an objectionable Nag to most people.

I agree Vic. But I was just going by the definition of Nagware being a
program that opens a nag window at startup or at any other point.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

John Corliss wrote:

> Vic Dura wrote:
>
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called
>>>> for, please start another thread.
>>>>
>>>> Question: should nagware be considered to be appropriate for
>>>> discussion in this group?
>>>>
>>> I am going to cancel this OP and re-phrase the question more carefully.
>>
>>
>> IMO A re-phrase would be more helpful if it specifies the *degree* of
>> Nag. Some programs have a very unobtrusive and benign "nag" that is
>> not annoying in the least, e.g. the old Opera Browser. Technically it
>> was Nagware, but it was not an objectionable Nag to most people.
>
>
> I agree Vic. But I was just going by the definition of Nagware being a
> program that opens a nag window at startup or at any other point.
>

Wish that had been made explicit.

-Craig

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:49:49 -0700, John Corliss
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> IMO A re-phrase would be more helpful if it specifies the *degree* of
>> Nag. Some programs have a very unobtrusive and benign "nag" that is
>> not annoying in the least, e.g. the old Opera Browser. Technically it
>> was Nagware, but it was not an objectionable Nag to most people.
>
>I agree Vic. But I was just going by the definition of Nagware being a
>program that opens a nag window at startup or at any other point.

XXCOPY "nags" every once in awhile with its _very_ slow and annoying
reminder that you're using the free version. The term "nag" is far too
subjective, IMO, for a simple poll like yours to have any value or
meaning.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 19:55:57 GMT, Art <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote Re Re:
Call for a vote.:

>On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:49:49 -0700, John Corliss
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> IMO A re-phrase would be more helpful if it specifies the *degree* of
>>> Nag. Some programs have a very unobtrusive and benign "nag" that is
>>> not annoying in the least, e.g. the old Opera Browser. Technically it
>>> was Nagware, but it was not an objectionable Nag to most people.
>>
>>I agree Vic. But I was just going by the definition of Nagware being a
>>program that opens a nag window at startup or at any other point.
>
>XXCOPY "nags" every once in awhile with its _very_ slow and annoying
>reminder that you're using the free version. The term "nag" is far too
>subjective, IMO, for a simple poll like yours to have any value or
>meaning.

XXcopy is a good example of an obtrusive nag. They also made a couple
of other annoying changes in the recent (last year or so) "free"
versions. One of them was some kind of install or more complicated
install. I can't remember now as I deleted it.

Nonetheless, it is still freeware IMO.
--
To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.

No :-)

Art <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:5ug7521v9ptbq201h0i792gm99e7le5u3s@
4ax.com:

> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:49:49 -0700, John Corliss
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>> IMO A re-phrase would be more helpful if it specifies the *degree* of
>>> Nag. Some programs have a very unobtrusive and benign "nag" that is
>>> not annoying in the least, e.g. the old Opera Browser. Technically it
>>> was Nagware, but it was not an objectionable Nag to most people.

>>I agree Vic. But I was just going by the definition of Nagware being a
>>program that opens a nag window at startup or at any other point.

> XXCOPY "nags" every once in awhile with its _very_ slow and annoying
> reminder that you're using the free version. The term "nag" is far too
> subjective, IMO, for a simple poll like yours to have any value or
> meaning.

I'm with you Art, the whole nagware situation is not as simple as John
seems to think.
The fact that we have had nagware on the Pricelessware list for at least
the last 6 years is testament to that. Most of us have voted on these ware
issues before, and yet programs that are supposedly not eligible to be even
talked about in this group have been voted onto the Pricelessware list.
I know Johns heart is in the right place, but sometimes I don't like his
methods for bringing peace and harmony to the group. It seems to be a bit
like the American way of making the world a safer place.