Announcement regarding the F.A.Q.

[Vic Dura]

On the other hand it can be both off topic and bloody annoying, eg -
if Paragon Partition Manager is included on the latest Australian PC
User magazine CD, then mention of this is IMO definitely not OK,
because only people who have access to, and pay for, the above
magazine can take up the "special" free offer.

So what? For the many people in that catagory it is indeed freeware,
and there are a lot of them. If there weren't a lot of subscribers
then the mag would be out of business. If you're a subscriber, it's
nice to have a fore-warning of a good program on the CD.

Or are you saying that if it's not free for everybody in the entire
world, then it's not freeware?

 

[Tiger]

Also about that time it "appeared" that Norton System Works 2000 was
free for the asking.

That would be more like a virus warning, wouldn't it? ;-)

 

[omega]

That would be more like a virus warning, wouldn't it? ;-)

I've got a boatlead of their CDs in storage. They make me buy that whole
package, because of their acquisition of the product Ghost. Fortunately,
I'd read the warnings. So after extracting Ghost from the CDs, I put all
of Symantec's CDs directly away. In a safe, airtight container, where
they cannot infect my computer.

 

[REMbranded]

Tiger <[email protected]> wrote:

(e-mail address removed) wrote in news:[email protected]:

That would be more like a virus warning, wouldn't it? ;-)

<G>

I know Norton AV would be. I've never seen the SW 2000, but you're
probably right about that too.

 

[BillR]

(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

I myself was interested in
hearing what commercial programs might be available for the
price of a magazine. Rather than split hairs (please), it was
simply free-enough-for-me-ware.

I thought you were one of the good guys?

[but since you disagree with me you're not, so you're a bad guy.]

I didn't make the rules, it's not me he is disagreeing with, it's the
group.

"I thought you were one of the good guys?" I read that in one of two
ways. First, as a somewhat tongue in cheek humorous plaint. Second,
as demonizing. If he is not "good" then he is ???? If the former, no
problem. My mistake. Apology/excuse below. Much of the time in acf
there is no question. Something I find quite unfortunate.

He _may_ be disagreeing with the group, but it is you who posted the
comment.

REMbranded is indeed a very productive member of this group, one of
the best. This is why I was so surprised at his support for the
posting of commercial programs provided for the price of a magazine.


Why is it undeserved? Are questions not allowed to be asked of
"productive members"?
We aren't moderated yet.

Questions, yes. Insults, no. Well, perhaps with sufficient
provocation. If any of several active members of this group ever
directly looses their attitude in my direction ....

"Are questions not allowed" -- of course. And disagreement. But not
just by you or those in your narrow faction. Is dissension in the
ranks allowed? Can some of us admit that even if we agree with a
policy, we don't have to like all of the consequences? ("Narrow
faction" -- I'm not addressing whether you are generally in the
majority on a single specific well defined binary question;
ultimately we are all factions of one.)

If your comment was of the "friendly disagreement" type, my sincere
apologies. I know that I have become quite sensitive to such nuances
(at least by others) after my latest immersion in acf.

BillR

 

[Mister Charlie]

So what? For the many people in that catagory it is indeed freeware,
and there are a lot of them. If there weren't a lot of subscribers
then the mag would be out of business. If you're a subscriber, it's
nice to have a fore-warning of a good program on the CD.

Or are you saying that if it's not free for everybody in the entire
world, then it's not freeware?

I would think magazine subscribers would be made aware of it by the
magazine itself, and not need advance posting.

Yet this parallels the issue of AVG update notices here (which I
supported) when they could simply be done quietly automatically. SO as
you can see I am terribly conflicted.

 

[bambam]

You are right. I was OT on this one. I really wasn't trying to
make waves with my statement. I just tried explaining my feelings
at the time.

I understand your interest in some of the CDWare offerings, you're not
the only one.
Maybe alt.comp.cdware?

Anyway, this has led to discussion about a moderated group. The
idea is to provide a very focused group with a very high
signal/noise ratio. I'd be interested to hear your view on that
thread.

I don't usually like sitting on the fence, but I don't really know if
it's a good idea or not.
On the one hand I like this group alot. I have learnt more in this
group about security, freeware, and netiquette, than anywhere else.
On the other hand I, like most others, have been getting less and less
interested in the group as the noise ratio has risen.
So I'd be like most others and would frequent both groups.

In an unmoderated group this is simply not possible. Regardless of
where you stand others can (and will) differ. A majority vote is
not enough, unfortunately, in an unmoderated group. It will work
in a moderated one though.

The moderated option does sound good, enforceable rules, maybe I should
have been a cop.

 

[bambam]

Or are you saying that if it's not free for everybody in the entire
world, then it's not freeware?

Yes, that is pretty much what I'm saying.
You are at long last starting to get the hang of this group thing,
ain't ya.
I know that there are a few exceptions, something to do with the
"United States Export Administration Act" and a few Arab and Asian
countries, namely Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and
Syria, and any other country that pisses off America.
So yea, barring a few politically correct exceptions your statement
above is what I'm saying.

 

[bambam]

(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in

"I thought you were one of the good guys?" I read that in one of
two ways. First, as a somewhat tongue in cheek humorous plaint.
Nope.

Second, as demonizing. If he is not "good" then he is ????

Nope, not that either.
It was a question, with no hidden meaning.

He _may_ be disagreeing with the group, but it is you who posted
the comment.

Very observant of you.

Questions, yes. Insults, no. Well, perhaps with sufficient
provocation. If any of several active members of this group ever
directly looses their attitude in my direction ....

You'll do what?

"Are questions not allowed" -- of course. And disagreement. But
not just by you or those in your narrow faction.

So it's OK then? The way you are carrying on you'd think I had called
him all the effen bees under the sun.

If your comment was of the "friendly disagreement" type, my
sincere apologies. I know that I have become quite sensitive to
such nuances (at least by others) after my latest immersion in acf

Apology accepted. ;oÞ

 

[Vic Dura]

Yes, that is pretty much what I'm saying.

I don't believe there are many people here that will not accept that.

 

[BillR]

(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in


Nope, not that either.
It was a question, with no hidden meaning.

If it was not jocular, then it was pejorative.

Very observant of you.


You'll do what?

Hold my breathe and turn red? Ignore the principles I espouse and
respond in kind?

So it's OK then? The way you are carrying on you'd think I had called
him all the effen bees under the sun.



Apology accepted. ;oÞ

Hmmm. I'm left with the feeling that you want it it both ways ("nope"
and "nope"), but if you feel it was merely friendly disagreement, you
would know. And as we agree, compared to what is often said in this
forum (non-tech usage), this is quite minor.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Wrath? In my dictionary it says "extreme anger". Did you think my
post was extremely angry?




I agree. ;o)

Hi Bambam,

Sorry to be so slow in replying. I *didn't* think your post was
extremely angry - I was in *soapbox oratory* mode (aka stupid mode) -
*OUR* wrath should be reserved . . . apologies for not being clearer.

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html

 

[bambam]

Hi Bambam,

Sorry to be so slow in replying. I *didn't* think your post was
extremely angry - I was in *soapbox oratory* mode (aka stupid
mode) - *OUR* wrath should be reserved . . . apologies for not
being clearer.

Hey, no worries Susan, I can see you are busy.
Keep up the good work, it is very much appreciated.

 

[status]

Sounds like freeware to me, if the feedback (or any other cost) is
optional. Good point.

John,
Following your train of thought in the FAQ, then it is NOT freeware.
But has Vic, Andy, and others (the *real* majority IMHO) have pointed
out, freeware is at no cost $$$ to use by the user. If you were to
count the $$$ and time put into development then *HOW* can it really
be freeware ?

 

[Spike]

None, unless propagation is still a problem. A news admin could
reasonably (IMO) refuse to carry the group because of that rmgroup. If
there aren't any troubles with servers not carrying it, no reason to
bother alt.config with it.

I don't know