[PL] PL2005 General Discussion

[omega]

There are a number of programs I would consider "priceless" but that I
currently don't use. Are you saying that my vote on these programs
should be "invalid" ? Or are you saying that my vote is only invalid
if I vote for Free Agent 1.21 ?

I think that people should only vote for programs they have used. If it's
FA 1.21 that one has used and which they are voting for -- as opposed to
payware Agent, and demo/crippleware FA 2.0 -- then that'd be a very worthy
vote in its favor.

 

[omega]

Subject: Re: [PL] PL2005 PROGRAM BALLOT

That's a point I hadn't considered. Thanks. Reposted

You're welcome. Glad to hear of the repost.

 

[jo]

There are a number of programs I would consider "priceless" but that I
currently don't use. Are you saying that my vote on these programs
should be "invalid" ? Or are you saying that my vote is only invalid
if I vote for Free Agent 1.21 ?

I think it is important that those voting for FA know they are voting
for 1.21.
I also think that most voters for FA will not have used 1.21 and so are
voting out of ignorance.
Perhaps FA is a special case... it certainly feels like it to me as an
Agent user since 1.5, having graduated to it from whatever the FA build
was at the time. (1.11?)

 

[omega]

It's just my mum is older than your mum.

What do I care, so long as my winME kb is bigger than your winME kb.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Way neato, thanks!

Get to sit in the stands, like for a sports event, and watch the scorecard
action from inning to inning.

The scorecard has changed again.

Total to date (Program Ballot): 1965 votes cast by 49 voters.

The votes cast by each person are here:

http://ftp.pricelesswarehome.org/

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Updated vote counts are online. Current stats:

67 voters, 2717 program votes

Irfanview in the lead with 49 votes
Ad-Aware close behind with 46

Ware Ballot: 11 (is) 28 (NOT)

The Nominations page is here:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/2005PL-Nominations.php

The votes cast by each person are here. Please check to see that your
ballots were counted correctly.

http://ftp.pricelesswarehome.org/

The list is sorted by email addresses. An address *without* a program is
used to indicate a "vote" that was not counted - IOW - a *non-vote* or a
*duplicate* vote.

If your votes don't appear on the list in a reasonable length of time do
NOT *repost* your ballot. Post in *this* thread and I'll look for your
ballots on another server. TIA

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

We have a problem.

Yesterday jo <[email protected]> said (in another thread):

"The current discussion started with a card app that adds a line of text
to the finished card. As I said in an earlier post, this puts it on a
par with ePrompter and Directory Lister (and there *must* be others)
which are on the current Program Ballot."

IOW - ePrompter and Directory Lister are Adware. They are not listed on
the PL2005 Ware Ballot. Their acceptability for PL2005 can be considered
in the Final Selection Discussion (if necessary).

Directory Lister is *PW2004*.

For some years the Pricelessware pages have stated: " There are NO
Adware/Spyware programs in the Pricelessware List."

Directory Lister became Adware when we revised the Adware definition in
the Ware Glossary. IOW - it was not Adware when it was selected for PL2004.

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/WareGlossary.php

Adware:
1. software that displays advertising for other products and/or services
(often downloaded from the internet by the software).
2. software that places advertisements on the end product (photos, web
pages, PDF files etc.).

Should we:

1. Remove or revise the Pricelessware Adware/Spware statement and add
"Adware" to Directory Lister's ware description.

2. Remove Directory Lister from PL2004

3. Revise the Ware Glossary

Comments please.

Susan

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

Should we:

1. Remove or revise the Pricelessware Adware/Spware statement and add
"Adware" to Directory Lister's ware description.

2. Remove Directory Lister from PL2004

3. Revise the Ware Glossary

2 seems the most reasonable approach now IMHO, we can - if needed -
reconsider the adware def. later (after - not during the vote).

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[omega]

2. Remove Directory Lister from PL2004

I will defend Directory Lister.

On csv output, it inserts no header field.

On txt output, it inserts a header field like this:

: # Generated on 2004-11-05 12:36:38 by Directory Lister v0.7

On html output, it inserts a header field like this:

: Generated on 2004-11-05 12:37:17 by <A class=href="http://freeware.prv.pl">Directory Lister</A> v0.7

On the txt and html, those header fields can be viewed as a possible
convenience. For the txt, I actually like the string. I admit I do not
like the hyperlink to product homepage for the html output. But from the
view of feature: it does give you a string already in place, for an SR,
to put in your custom header there in those files.

It would be a superior product if you could change the header before the
files are generated, and not have to do external post-processing.

I bet there is a good chance that the author could be talked into making
that change. He is only pointing to his freeware homepage, and gains little
by the hyperlink. Actually, I'm not absolutely certain it is not already
possible, to change the header output template; I can only say that I don't
see the means.

2. Remove Directory Lister from PL2004

Grey area (Jo's point). And this particular example, IMO, it lands this
side of freeware.

2. software that places advertisements on the end product (photos, web
pages, PDF files etc.).

On csv output, no header. On txt output, "Generated by Dirlister, on Date
XXX." On html output, same as with the txt...plus that link to the freeware
homepage. Does it in (removable) plain text; and not for purpose of least
possible commercial gain.

Of course, right here is an area where a product such as Nitzsche's Dirhtml
is much superior. Dirhtml gives you full customization before even generating
the files, and does not exhibit any such need to insert its product name into
your output files.

My considering Dirlister as inferior due to the homepage hyperlink insertion
in output -- that is a different matter from saying it should be removed from
PL2004. It should not be removed.

1. Remove or revise the Pricelessware Adware/Spware statement and add
"Adware" to Directory Lister's ware description.

3. Revise the Ware Glossary

We might be due a meta Ware discussion, soon; but I agree with Bjorn, about
the timing, in regards to revising definitions. Let's reserve our energies
for finishing with the current PL2005 voting, as top priority.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I will defend Directory Lister.

I will too, if it behaves as you just demonstrated here.
Thanks. (No time to play with it my self now).

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]>:

It would be a superior product if you could change the header before the
files are generated, and not have to do external post-processing.

If the header was *optional* it would not be Adware.

Grey area (Jo's point). And this particular example, IMO, it lands this
side of freeware.

That's fuzzy logic. If Directory Lister meets the current ACF definition
of Adware then Directory Lister *is* Adware and will remain Adware until
something changes - either the behavior of the program or the ACF
definition of Adware.

ACF has a rule that says Adware cannot be on the Pricelessware List.
That rule can be waived for Directory Lister if the group chooses to do so.

Definitions do not *bend*. Rules can be *bent*. Directory Lister *is*
Adware. What do we want to *do* about that?

Susan

 

[omega]

[re Directory Lister]

If the header was *optional* it would not be Adware.

What about the usenet and email clients that put their names in the
User-Agent field, and give you no option there?

Directory Lister, it is local files, in plain text. I can alter them
if I want. I can use CSV only, and never once see its name in the first
place.

 

[jo]

What about the usenet and email clients that put their names in the
User-Agent field, and give you no option there?

Google Toolbar...

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

Definitions do not *bend*. Rules can be *bent*.

Most things needs interpretation, definitions and rules included.

Directory Lister *is* Adware.

Strong words, not supported by a good argument IMHO:

"2. software that places advertisements on the end product
(photos, web pages, PDF files etc.)."

AFAIK Directory lister is promoting the authors own freeware page in
the html output. Is that the kind of advertisement the group had in
mind with the above definition? Or put differently, do we by
advertisements also mean a URL pointing to the authors freeware page?
Granted the header should have been optional or not there in the first
place, but when all the URL promotes is the authors own *freeware
page*, I don't see much harm in it. Annoying to some perhaps, but does
it qualify for the "adware" label? As to what to do about it here and
now: Nothing, let it rest until after the vote.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]>:

[re Directory Lister]

What about the usenet and email clients that put their names in the
User-Agent field, and give you no option there?

Is a name in the User-Agent field an advertisement?

Adware:
1. software that displays advertising for other products and/or services
(often downloaded from the internet by the software).
2. software that places advertisements on the end product (photos, web
pages, PDF files etc.).

Directory Lister, it is local files, in plain text. I can alter them
if I want. I can use CSV only, and never once see its name in the first
place.

Is a person who only drinks liquor every third day a teetotaler?

Susan

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

Google Toolbar...

Belarc Advisor
<http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/PL2005SYSTEMUTILITIES.php#0084-PW>

example from output:

<FONT face=arial><B>
<A HREF="http://www.belarc.com/ctadvisor.html?B">
Click here for Belarc's PC Management products,
for large and small companies.
/A>
</B></FONT>

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[omega]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]>:

[re Directory Lister]

What about the usenet and email clients that put their names in the
User-Agent field, and give you no option there?

Is a name in the User-Agent field an advertisement?

It has that effect, although I don't see it as intention, for those mail and
usenet clients lacking option to suppress that.

Nor do I see that as the intention for text lists:

: # Generated on 2004-11-05 12:36:38 by Directory Lister v0.7

Do you object to the above, or only to the hyperlink that is initially placed
in the text of the html files?

: Generated on 2004-11-05 12:37:17 by <A class=href="http://freeware.prv.pl">Directory Lister</A> v0.7

That is, do you think product name should never be anywhere, in any output
report? Or only those which are hyperlinked?

 

[Susan Bugher]

Most things needs interpretation, definitions and rules included.

Interpretations may vary. That's why Outlook Express is on the PL2005
Ware Ballot. OTOH - sometimes the definition is clear *but*. . .

Last year Trillian was on the PL2004 Ware Ballot. It was clearly Nagware
*but* the nag was seldom seen - many people *never* saw it. Acf
participants voted to make an exception in the Pricelessware rules.

Strong words, not supported by a good argument IMHO:

"2. software that places advertisements on the end product
(photos, web pages, PDF files etc.)."

AFAIK Directory lister is promoting the authors own freeware page in
the html output. Is that the kind of advertisement the group had in
mind with the above definition? Or put differently, do we by
advertisements also mean a URL pointing to the authors freeware page?
Granted the header should have been optional or not there in the first
place, but when all the URL promotes is the authors own *freeware
page*, I don't see much harm in it. Annoying to some perhaps, but does
it qualify for the "adware" label?

I think it does.

The Just Right Click Greeting Card app puts this on the back of a
greeting card:

"Just Right Click Greeting Card: www.justrightclick.com"

I said that it was Adware. Others have expressed their agreement.

As to what to do about it here and
now: Nothing, let it rest until after the vote.

Pretend the Emporer is wearing clothes? IMO the issue should be resolved.

Susan

 

[omega]

Belarc Advisor
<http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/PL2005SYSTEMUTILITIES.php#0084-PW>

example from output:

<FONT face=arial><B>
<A HREF="http://www.belarc.com/ctadvisor.html?B">
Click here for Belarc's PC Management products,
for large and small companies.
/A>
</B></FONT>

Popcorn wants to be added to that which can be a substantial list here:

X-Mailer: Ultrafunk Popcorn release 1.50b3 (10-Sep-2003)
X-URL: http://www.ultrafunk.com/products/popcorn/

Quoting <[email protected]>

"Most things needs interpretation, definitions and rules included."

 

[Susan Bugher]

[re Directory Lister]

What about the usenet and email clients that put their names in the
User-Agent field, and give you no option there?

Is a name in the User-Agent field an advertisement?

It has that effect, although I don't see it as intention, for those mail and
usenet clients lacking option to suppress that.

Nor do I see that as the intention for text lists:

: # Generated on 2004-11-05 12:36:38 by Directory Lister v0.7

Do you object to the above, or only to the hyperlink that is initially placed
in the text of the html files?

: Generated on 2004-11-05 12:37:17 by <A class=href="http://freeware.prv.pl">Directory Lister</A> v0.7

That is, do you think product name should never be anywhere, in any output
report? Or only those which are hyperlinked?

I object to calling an apple and orange. If an app is Adware it should
be called Adware.

Accurate labeling is especially important in regard to the Pricelessware
List. Judgements about *acceptable* "wares" are made by all newsgroup
participants, not just the people who use a particular program.

A mislabeled app misleads the group.

Susan