And Susan is right about this. Correctly describing the program as
nagware doesn't change the fact that it was improperly allowed in by
those who took the time to vote on the list. I never vote on the list,
so I suppose some people think I shouldn't criticize it. That's not
the issue. Like anybody else, I can criticize anything I like. Whether
or not my criticism accordingly has any weight is another issue
though.
Sure you can critise anything you want, could you kindly exercise the
same previlage to me?
However, the Pricelessware list and this group are two different
entities - a fact that many often lose track of.
A. It's not an "obsession", it's a firm dedication to defending the
definition of freeware.
For what reason exactly? Beyond the fact of playing word definitional
games? And Please don't give me your tired old rant about how the bad
guys will take over the group again, the voting patterns show this will
never occur.
B. "Getting ridiculous" to whom? I'm sure there are those who agree
with your position, but you do not speak for this group or even for
the majority.
That's funny. If I don't speak for this group, who does? You? How do you
know my views don't speak for a majority?
Oh sure, people vote for ware types , but the evidence shown by the
actual voting of pricelessware entries supports my view people don't
really care about silly word games.
So what if Antivir is actually nagware, and they voted to exclude
nagware, so much the worse for the definitions.
How else would you explain it with so many people wifully voting such
entries in?
The second sentence is one that apparently Susan added to the
definition. My F.A.Q. defined nagware as:
"Nagware - there is a popup (nag) screen at program startup, exhorting
you to purchase the software."
and this definition was both discussed by the group and voted on at
the time (predating Susan's version) that my F.A.Q. was composed.
Hate to break it to you JC, but the only one that counts is Susan's.
'Yours' was voted back in prehistorical times, time to throw it out.
As for Susan's, it seems clear to me not many people care a whole lot
about playing this word game of whether something is crippleware, or
lightware or nagware, when push comes to shove they vote for what they
feel in their gut is priceless, that is why you see all this silly
contradictions.
Let's face it, I seriously doubt most people here are here to defend the
honor and definition of pure freeware.
Like many others, you are confusing whether or not something should be
used with whether or not something should be discussed in this group.
Heh. The only one confused is you.
You would be surprised to see what software *I* use on my computer in
spite of the fact that I don't feel that it should be discussed
(except in the context of demonstrating features that one is looking
for) or recommended in this group.
So you use payware, do you think it really shocks me?
Regardless, you're employing an old tactic that many trolls (and no,
I'm not calling you a troll) have used in the past.
Well, with you, traditionally people disgreeing with you a few more times
will be enough to get them there in your book. i expect you will be
calling me a troll and killfiling me in a few days later.
That is,
attempting to prove that defining a certain type of ware is
impossible, and then after you have convinced yourself that this is
the case, extrapolating from this a further flawed logic that
everybody should simply give up on trying to defend the definition of
freeware.
Did I say that?
Certain critical features like the ability to save or print have
clearly been defined as indicators of crippleware when they are
missing.
Defined by who? I can do rules lawyering again and point out that the
offical ware glossary (wisely) does not attempt to try to define what are
critical features. Because clearly there would be a broad range of
disagreements.
What good is the distinction actually then? Except as an excuse to allow
something that otherwise wouldn't be allowed in.
I expect something like this might happen for nagware, if nothing it will
just make purist freaks like yourself happy.
This area is not anywhere as gray as you make it out, but
yes, it is indeed gray to a certain extent. This, however, does not
mean that everybody should simply give up and start recommending
crippleware in this group.
Of course they won't recommend crippleware, they can simply call it
liteware, and if enough people say so, it becomes liteware! Don't you see
how absurd this whole thing is.
In an unmoderated group, this is an obvious fact that nobody is likely
to miss. However, common sense dictates that it's in the best
interests of this group to try to stay on-topic as best as possible,
and nagware is clearly not on topic.
JC, let me lay it out to you. What ware types are allowed into
pricelessware is voted on by the people right?
In theory, they could vote in Nagware if they wanted to. And while i can
see why abstractly nagware doesn't sound so good ( i can see myself
voting against it because nagging is such a negative word), if you
started throwing out stuff from pricelessware just because of that, you
could possibiliy see in the next vote, nagware becomes acceptable!
Particularly since unlike warez, or malware or shareware, there is no
strong concensus.
Already I see some people in denial trying to say it isn't Nagware by
that defintion.
So what would happen then? Would we have a situation where according to
you nagware is offtopic but could be in pricelessware? Just idly
wondering.
In fact, many of the major
freeware websites are proud of the fact that the software they list
includes no nags, ads or spyware.
But all of them list Antivir too! So how do you explain that?
Simple, they are human and hence flexible enough to bend the rules when
necessary. Of course the fact is they don't pretend to have an all
encompassing system to classify all the diverse types of software, just
the ones they target!
Not only that, but IMO, recommending nagware on the Pricelessware
list IMO wounds the credibility of the site.
If you ask me, listing anything but pure freeware on Pricelessware IMO
wounds the creditability of the site.
In your opinion, but I totally disagree with you.
Disagree all you want. Give reasons why.
In your opinion again, and it is an opinion that if everybody shared,
the effectiveness of this group would rapidly be diminished.
Aaron, not including nagware in the list of acceptable type of
software was important enough to Nonags.com that they actually named
their website in a fashion indicating how they felt about it.
And yet they do list Antivir?
At least with me, that tactic doesn't work at all. You are doing a
disservice to this group by attempting to trivialize both the
definition of freeware and the common sense of staying on topic here.
In your opinion of course. Personally I think your presence in most
threads tend to be a disservice to the group because of the inevitable
trolls you attract and your attention seeking tactics (it's amazing how
often you mention the OT Microsoft!) typically we go off topic faster
than you can say sock puppets.
