Announcement regarding the F.A.Q.

[John Corliss]

I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q. This is a
permanent change and is not open for discussion.

If you want an F.A.Q., I suggest that you either go with John
Fitzsimmons' version or create a new one at the Pricelessware site.

 

[Anti-semetic Jew]

I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q. This is a
permanent change and is not open for discussion.

If you want an F.A.Q., I suggest that you either go with John
Fitzsimmons' version or create a new one at the Pricelessware site.

Can you say...

PWN3D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Andy Mabbett]

I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q. This is a
permanent change

<SFX: Cheers>

Mind you, anyone with a clue would have left a page at that address,
with a link to John F's FAQ

and is not open for discussion.

As per your usual style.



Any bets on how long 'til it's back?

 

[Henk de Jong]

Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> schreef in

<snipped crap>

I *think* you do a lot of people in here a favor when you really
get a real life.

So, go back under your stone, and stay there.....

 

[MikeA]

"semetic"?
You can not even spell!
MikeA

Can you say...

PWN3D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tonda]

Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> schreef in

<snipped crap>

I think you do a lot of people in here a favor when you really
get a real life.

So, go back under your stone, and stay there.....

What happened to your real life?

<
tonda

 

[Blinky the Shark]

"semetic"?
You can not even spell!

Not something they spend much time on, in troll school.

 

[Graydogg]

I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q. This is a
permanent change and is not open for discussion.

Strange, we're discussing it (sort-of). A non issue?

 

[Andy Mabbett]

<snipped crap>

What a pity you didn't.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

Henk de Jong wrote: [...]

What happened to your real life?

<news:[email protected]>

The Corliss school of newsgroup departure...

 

[badgolferman]

<SFX: Cheers>

Mind you, anyone with a clue would have left a page at that address,
with a link to John F's FAQ



As per your usual style.



Any bets on how long 'til it's back?

I am relatively new to this forum and would like to state my opinion just as
many others around here do. This forum has the most acrimony of any I have
visited and since I don't know the whole history I will refrain from taking
any sides.

There are obviously some here who disagree with the definition of "freeware"
as defined by certain members and wish to discuss a variety of software they
deem fit as freeware. In addition there is some resentment towards the
authors of the Pricelessware website. I believe it has to do with the view
that these authors are trying to control the content and topics discussed on
this forum.

Regardless of the underlying feuds I find the forum helpful in introducing
software to me that I would not have the inclination or time to find on my
own. However all the bickering between different parties is taking away
from the usefulness of this place. I do not pretend to have the solution
for these arguments but I wonder about some points.

1) Who first developed this forum and what was their desired intention?

2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could be
discussed in more depth? Something like alt.comp.freeware.disagreements

3) Could another forum be created where dissenting members could discuss
different varieties of software that does not meet the definition of pure
"freeware"?

I realize these points in themselves may be controversial or even completely
unacceptable to some, but the way it is going now not only will long-time
members be driven away but also any new blood that may have something decent
to contribute.

 

[Vic Dura]

I am relatively new to this forum and would like to state my opinion just as
many others around here do. This forum has the most acrimony of any I have
visited and since I don't know the whole history I will refrain from taking
any sides.

There are obviously some here who disagree with the definition of "freeware"
as defined by certain members and wish to discuss a variety of software they
deem fit as freeware. In addition there is some resentment towards the
authors of the Pricelessware website. I believe it has to do with the view
that these authors are trying to control the content and topics discussed on
this forum.

You have made some very perceptive observations.

1) Who first developed this forum and what was their desired intention?

Here's the control message that created this group. You can think of
it as a type of charter.


==================

From (e-mail address removed) Sun Dec 31 06:05:02 1995
Path:
uunet!in2.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news.cic.net!phish.nether.net!knabbie
From: (e-mail address removed) (Terry Knab)
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.comp.freeware
Control: newgroup alt.comp.freeware
Date: 31 Dec 1995 11:06:17 GMT
Organization: Nether.Net -- Public access Linux system
Lines: 1
Approved: (e-mail address removed)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: phish.nether.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: uunet control.newgroup:6019

alt.comp.freeware discussion and binaries of freeeware

===================

That's all there is.

2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could be
discussed in more depth? Something like alt.comp.freeware.disagreements

This is a good suggestions, but unfortunately I don't think it would
help. A lot of the acrimony is due not so much to the disagreements
about the definition of "freeware" but to certain members of this NG
trying to impose their definition on posters here. They do this by
stating something to the effect "..that is off-topic here.." Visitors
to the NG are inclined to accept that as fact, not realizing that it
is not the case.

Also, it has always been my understanding that a tradition of UseNet
is that in unmoderated NGs questions of topicality are always on-topic
in the NG to which they pertain. You are correct in observing that the
questions of topicality here seem to by excessive. For that, both
sides are at fault.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

there is some resentment towards the authors of the Pricelessware
website. I believe it has to do with the view that these authors
are trying to control the content and topics discussed on this
forum.

Susan Bugher currently maintains the pricelessware.org site on
behalf of a.c.f, and before Susan took over so much of the work
Genna Reeney did so. Both of them are highly respected here by
almost everyone.

It's true IMO that there is 'some resentment' of the
pricelessware.org site, /but/ that resentment seems to be limited to
a single poster, and he has not made the reasons for the resentment
clear at all. (He's the one who started the "PL promotes copyright
infringement" thread, and he is the one who's taken once again to
posting mini-floods which include spyware &c.) His sock-puppeting
tactics may make it seem that the resentment is not limited to one
poster, but AFAICT it is just him.

1) Who first developed this forum and what was their desired
intention?

The group was proposed in 1995. Initial intention was misguided.
The proposal is available at Google,
<http://groups.google.com/[email protected]>.
Click 'Complete Thread' to view discussion. After discussion, the
group was created and immediately removed both because no sufficient
argument had been given in support of creation and because it was an
attempt to place a binaries group outside of alt.binaries.*

Despite removal, the group was propagated by quite a few servers,
and as spyware and adware became more prevalent people sought this
group out as a place where the wheat could be separated from the
chaff. (That's my impression of the group's growth during the
1990s - others may disagree).

A newgroup control message was sent in 1999, and there was no removal
which followed it - it was this 1999 message that gave the group
legitimacy (as much as any alt.* group can have, anyway). This control
was justified by existing traffic, and the intent was to make it clear
to server admins that they should add the group to their lists, making
propagation better.

2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could
be discussed in more depth? Something like
alt.comp.freeware.disagreements

Could it? Maybe.

Should it? Not IMO.

But /if/ such a thing is necessary or workable, the low-traffic
a.c.f.discussion might be used for that. a.c.f.d currently is a group
without clear purpose; its inception was as muddled as that of a.c.f.
a.c.f.d was never discussed in alt.config, and it was also removed
after being created, so it does not have the legitimacy a.c.f does. If
traffic in a.c.f.d warranted it, a new control message could be sent
after discussion here and in alt.config. If somebody wants to champion
that cause or a similar one, I'd at least urge waiting until January
2004 to try for it, when the PL 2004 process has been completed.

3) Could another forum be created where dissenting members could
discuss different varieties of software that does not meet the
definition of pure "freeware"?

alt.comp.shareware.* and alt.comp.adware already exist. There is also
alt.comp.apps.* as well as a great many other groups for discussion of
different varieties of software.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Here's the control message that created this group. You can think
of it as a type of charter.

Vic, you should not represent it as a type of charter. The term
"charter" in this context means something specific. The slot where
a charter *could* have been put in the newgroup control is *empty*.
This group does not have a charter.

 

[Tiger]

Vic, you should not represent it as a type of charter. The term
"charter" in this context means something specific. The slot where
a charter *could* have been put in the newgroup control is *empty*.
This group does not have a charter.

As I said, he'd make an excellent spin doctor...not that anyone with
any intelligence and/or ethics respects such a creature.

--
Tiger

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

 

[Blinky the Shark]

<news:3CZmb.101938$0Z5.64631@lakeread03>:

Susan Bugher currently maintains the pricelessware.org site on
behalf of a.c.f, and before Susan took over so much of the work
Genna Reeney did so. Both of them are highly respected here by
almost everyone.

It's true IMO that there is 'some resentment' of the
pricelessware.org site, /but/ that resentment seems to be limited to
a single poster, and he has not made the reasons for the resentment
clear at all. (He's the one who started the "PL promotes copyright
infringement" thread, and he is the one who's taken once again to

I did not catch that! What was his ID du jour, for that -- remember?

posting mini-floods which include spyware &c.) His sock-puppeting
tactics may make it seem that the resentment is not limited to one
poster, but AFAICT it is just him.

The group was proposed in 1995. Initial intention was misguided.
The proposal is available at Google,
<http://groups.google.com/[email protected]>.
Click 'Complete Thread' to view discussion. After discussion, the
group was created and immediately removed both because no sufficient
argument had been given in support of creation and because it was an
attempt to place a binaries group outside of alt.binaries.*

Despite removal, the group was propagated by quite a few servers,
and as spyware and adware became more prevalent people sought this

Remember when they were the *exception*?

group out as a place where the wheat could be separated from the
chaff. (That's my impression of the group's growth during the
1990s - others may disagree).

A newgroup control message was sent in 1999, and there was no removal
which followed it - it was this 1999 message that gave the group
legitimacy (as much as any alt.* group can have, anyway). This control
was justified by existing traffic, and the intent was to make it clear
to server admins that they should add the group to their lists, making
propagation better.

So it was no longer rogue, at that point in 1999.

Could it? Maybe.

Should it? Not IMO.

But /if/ such a thing is necessary or workable, the low-traffic
a.c.f.discussion might be used for that. a.c.f.d currently is a group

Regs might use it, but the trolls won't. They can't disrupt acf by
trolling acfd.

without clear purpose; its inception was as muddled as that of a.c.f.
a.c.f.d was never discussed in alt.config, and it was also removed
after being created, so it does not have the legitimacy a.c.f does. If
traffic in a.c.f.d warranted it, a new control message could be sent
after discussion here and in alt.config. If somebody wants to champion
that cause or a similar one, I'd at least urge waiting until January
2004 to try for it, when the PL 2004 process has been completed.

I didn't realize it wasn't legit, now. I'll be darned.

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could be
discussed in more depth? Something like alt.comp.freeware.disagreements

3) Could another forum be created where dissenting members could discuss
different varieties of software that does not meet the definition of pure
"freeware"?

There is another alternative. How about a.c.f.moderated, where the
definition of freeware can be strictly controlled. I do wonder though who
would be prepared to put the time in to moderate it.

Have to admit, I naively thought that groups like this existed to help
people, and for that to happen, rules sometimes have to be bent. Seems, at
least as far as some are concerned, I was wrong again.

 

[Vic Dura]

Vic, you should not represent it as a type of charter. The term
"charter" in this context means something specific. The slot where
a charter *could* have been put in the newgroup control is *empty*.
This group does not have a charter.

Yes, I agree with you. I should not have used the word "charter". I
should have just left it as "control message".

 

[Boomer]

<news:3CZmb.101938$0Z5.64631@lakeread03>: [snip]

2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could
be discussed in more depth? Something like
alt.comp.freeware.disagreements

Could it? Maybe.

Should it? Not IMO.

But /if/ such a thing is necessary or workable, the low-traffic
a.c.f.discussion might be used for that. a.c.f.d currently is a
group without clear purpose; its inception was as muddled as that
of a.c.f. a.c.f.d was never discussed in alt.config, and it was
also removed after being created, so it does not have the
legitimacy a.c.f does.

What do you mean by as legitimate as a.c.f.? The group is already a
valid usenet group. It just didn't have a charter sent with the
control message.

If traffic in a.c.f.d warranted it, a new
control message could be sent after discussion here and in
alt.config.

The original control message is the one that counted.

If somebody wants to champion that cause or a similar
one, I'd at least urge waiting until January 2004 to try for it,
when the PL 2004 process has been completed.

What would that do for a.c.f.d.? The majority of news servers carry
it. I don't understand what sending a new control would accomplish?

[snip]

Maybe you mean a booster message?
http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html

For anyone interested:
http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm

 

[|3iff //ullins' flonk]

fizzle pop Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:35:09 -0800, whir sput ssssput John

I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q

its about time. what happened, john-john? did a safe full of reality
drop on your head?

**
|3iff "flonk" //ulins
CEO Indignitas - Formerly Alcatroll Labs Inc. (A Subsidiary of SNUH)
flOnk aT vERizOn DoT nEt

" "
-Marcel Marceau