[PL] PL2005 General Discussion

[Susan Bugher]

I'm not sure we can say why voters decided Trillian was ok for the
2004 PL. Maybe you are right that they saw it as nagware but
thought the nature of the nags made them a negligible. Or
maybe they just didn't believe that there ever were any nags.
AFAICR, no one but me ever posted confirming that there were nags,
and there were a lot of responses saying things like "I never see
nag screens". No one explicitly called me a liar, but it's possible
I just wasn't believed.

I think you were believed. IMO a screen shot is pretty convincing
evidence. ISTM we can conclude with a fair degree of confidence that the
voters knew it was Nagware and in this particular case didn't care.

I did theorize ahead of the evidence. It could be that Trillian would
have gotten the same number of votes if it nagged on a daily basis.

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

To go back to basics, would not the point about adware be that it tries
to induce the user to buy something, i.e., in the sense of an
advertisement? So, if a program runs ads that try to sell something,
they are adware and should not be included in the definition of
freeware. But if they merely identify themselves, then that should be
OK. Am I missing something?

Many software developers sell their own services. IMO a "name brand" on
an "end product" is an advertisement.

stray thought. . .

I wonder if Multi-Media apps do subliminal advertising. . .

Susan

 

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

I think you were believed.

I hope so, but I guess I didn't want to really believe so many thought
nagware was ok for the PL.

IMO a screen shot is pretty convincing evidence.

If I had some way to demonstrate how thoroughly pathetic my
photoshopping skillz are, there'd be no doubt.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Yeah. Maybe best to sort out remaining categorization issues in the
post-vote discussion, with a new thread for them.

Subcategories affect the preliminary PL selections. I'd prefer to have
posts about suggested changes made now. If there's a flood of posts we
can think again. . .

Susan

 

[jo]

Many software developers sell their own services. IMO a "name brand" on
an "end product" is an advertisement.

The freeware DivX codec brands its product briefly.
I'm not at all sure that product branding constitutes adware.
For god's sake: you can spend 100,000 GBP on a car and it is still going
to have 'Porsche' (or whatever) logos splattered all over it.
The card app that started this discussion has considerably less
'advertising' content than 90% (invented stat) of any bought card.

It's all a question of degree.

Look at ePrompter again: wonderful app, I voted for it for the PL list.

I have used it on 98, 98SE, ME, and XP and it has casually crashed at
random on all of them. It is a buggy mess.
It puts an unremoveable bit of branding on any outgoing mail.
It has a bloody great clickable PayPal logo on its GUI
And it accepts incoming 'mail' from the ePrompter team, which feels to
me like a security accident waiting to happen.

I will still recommend it without hesitation as a superb bit of freeware
for anyone who wants an app that does exactly what it does.

Hmmm... looks like I might be starting an ePrompter thread; this was not
my intention at the start of the post, just like it wasn't my intention
to kick anything off in respect of DL :-(

stray thought. . .

I wonder if Multi-Media apps do subliminal advertising. . .

I yearn for a 'Fight Club' sub thread

 

[Gord McFee]

Many software developers sell their own services. IMO a "name brand" on
an "end product" is an advertisement.

You mean like, "Produced by xxxxx?" If so, then there are a lot of
Pricelessware apps that will have to be removed. I can't see what is
wrong with a piece of software promoting *itself*.

 

[Gord McFee]

Hi majales,

Thunderbird has received quite a few votes. I'd like to make sure the
change is acceptable to others.

Comments please. Which subcategory is best for Thunderbird?

I would say Mail & News.

 

[Susan Bugher]

The freeware DivX codec brands its product briefly.
I'm not at all sure that product branding constitutes adware.
For god's sake: you can spend 100,000 GBP on a car and it is still going
to have 'Porsche' (or whatever) logos splattered all over it.
The card app that started this discussion has considerably less
'advertising' content than 90% (invented stat) of any bought card.

IMO the issue is not "advertising". It's "truth in advertising". PW
programs' ware types should correspond to acf ware definitions. IOW - no
surprizes - WYSIWYG.

"That's not what I mean when I say Adware" is all well and good. IMO
that *is* what the Ware Glossary meams when it defines Adware.

When things don't match *something* needs revision. The simplest fix is
the Ware type. The *best* fix may be a revision in the Ware Glossary.

it wasn't my intention
to kick anything off in respect of DL :-(

The Ware Glossary criteria applies here too. If you don't mean it -
don't say it.

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Gord McFee wrote:

I can't see what is

wrong with a piece of software promoting *itself*.

If you think this type of advertising is okay for apps on the
Pricelessware List you should request/support a change in the the Adware
definition. Adware apps have *unacceptable* types of advertising.

Susan

 

[omega]

You mean like, "Produced by xxxxx?" If so, then there are a lot of
Pricelessware apps that will have to be removed. I can't see what is
wrong with a piece of software promoting *itself*.

Agree. Once we have a PL2005 list, I'll be able to illustrate many examples.

In the meantime, note how many examples can be immediately seen of the
self-references, even just within the category of utilities under which
Directory Lister falls.


================== File listers, output to txt ========================

Visual CD
(export to txt)

: *** Generated by Visual CD 1.8 on 2004.11.07 15:21:55 ***

Catfish
(export to txt)

: CatFish - WBAK - C: [WBAK]

Karen's Directory Printer
(saved as txt)

: COMMENT Karen's Directory Printer v4.1.2
: COMMENT Copyright © 1997, 1999-2002, 2004 by Karen Kenworthy, All Rights Reserved
: COMMENT http://www.karenware.com/

Version Information List
(cmdline)

: PRUDENS (R) Version Information Viewer of PE Files Version 1.0.0.
: Copyright (C) PRUDENS INC. 1995-1998. All rights reserved.
: Visit www.spywindows.com for other useful utilities.

Dirlister output file to txt:

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

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



=================== File listers, output to html ========================

Dir2html

: <p>Created by <a href="http://www.pc-tools.net/">DIR2HTML 1.1.0</a></p>

Mihov Index Maker

: <H4>Index created with <A HREF="http://www.mihov.com/eng/im.html">Mihov Index Maker</A> version 1.50.</H4>

IndexGenerator

: <p align=right>Made with <a href="http://www.tildemh.com">Index Generator 2.4</a></p>

CD2HTML 3.4.2

: <FONT FACE="times" SIZE=1>Created by <A HREF="http://www.lausitz.net/~petro/">CD2HTML v3.4.2</A> (© 1999 by <A HREF="mailto[email protected]">Falk Petro</A>)<BR></FONT>

SearchIt (local files list from search criteria)

: <FONT SIZE=0>Generated by <FONT COLOR=RED>SearchIt!</FONT> v1.10 <A HREF="http://members.xoom.com/rvasicek" target=_new>(C) R.Vasicek, 2000</a></FONT>

ListMaker

: <FONT SIZE=+1>List created with Koolguy's ListMaker. Small, fast, easy and automated!</FONT></CENTER>
: <CENTER><FONT SIZE=+1>Get it free at: <A HREF=http://www.nwlink.com/~koolguy/home.html>http://www.nwlink.com/~koolguy/home.html</A>

Dirlister

: <td colspan=5 CLASS="header">Generated on 2004-11-05 12:37:17 by <A href="http://freeware.prv.pl">Directory Lister</A> v0.7 </td>

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

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I asked if the group wished to remove Directory Lister. The answer seems
to be no. I will label Directory Lister accurately.

At first the "ware type list" sound like a good idea, a nice service.
Now it looks like it is turning in to a straitjacket. I belive the
idea behind the "ware types list" was to serve a guide to the various
"ware types" attached to different programs, but now it seems the
"guide" have become the gospel. Usually if the map no longer fits the
terrain, you change the map, not the other way around.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Susan Bugher]

How about taking it to discussion and ware ballot? That need not
interrupt everything else. I agree that it would be a very
significant change that must not go ahead without consensus.

The change occurred in April when we revised the Ware Glossary. The
effect of the revision has become apparent now. Removing the new part of
the Adware definition would resolve the present difficulty.

The re-revised definition would be:

Adware: software that displays advertising for other products and/or
services (often downloaded from the internet by the software).

I'm in favor of that course of action. Comments?

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

At first the "ware type list" sound like a good idea, a nice service.
Now it looks like it is turning in to a straitjacket. I belive the
idea behind the "ware types list" was to serve a guide to the various
"ware types" attached to different programs, but now it seems the
"guide" have become the gospel. Usually if the map no longer fits the
terrain, you change the map, not the other way around.

ISTM ware types are the map and ware descriptions are the terrain. If
you don't like the terrain you do some landscaping.


Susan

 

[Gord McFee]

In

Gord McFee wrote:

I can't see what is

If you think this type of advertising is okay for apps on the
Pricelessware List you should request/support a change in the the
Adware definition.

I already did yesterday. And I don't think it is advertising in the
commonly understood sense of the word, because it does not attempt to
get someone to buy something.

Adware apps have *unacceptable* types of
advertising.

That's my point.

 

[Gord McFee]

In

The change occurred in April when we revised the Ware Glossary. The
effect of the revision has become apparent now. Removing the new part
of the Adware definition would resolve the present difficulty.

The re-revised definition would be:

Adware: software that displays advertising for other products and/or
services (often downloaded from the internet by the software).

What if the other product is free?

I'm in favor of that course of action. Comments?

Should whether or not the "ad" attempts to *sell* something play a role
in the definition?

 

[omega]

ISTM ware types are the map and ware descriptions are the terrain.

The complex spectrum of software behaviors, that is the terrain. One
needs beware the pitfalls of reification (mistaking the representation
for the thing).

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]>:

The complex spectrum of software behaviors, that is the terrain. One
needs beware the pitfalls of reification (mistaking the representation
for the thing).

Let's mot over-simplify this.

Susan

 

[Nicolaas Hawkins]

Let's mot over-simplify this.

Susan

LOL! Subtle as a whisper, dry as a wooden god, and as droll as it gets.
And punny with it ...I LIKE IT!

--
Regards,
Nicolaas.


- The toilet isn't really engaged- it just shows a red flag.

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

ISTM ware types are the map and ware descriptions are the terrain. If
you don't like the terrain you do some landscaping.

Classification's a useful tool. It's not an end in itself. If we
have got ourselves into a situation where we either have to remove a
program that does not try to induce us to buy something, or we have to
remove the "no adware or spyware" assertion from the Pricelessware
pages, then we've gone astray. We shouldn't do either of these things
which defeat the Pricelessware purpose.

Yes, to follow on your metaphor, we need to landscape, and so far as
the definition of adware is concerned, if it places us in a situation
where we're describing software as adware where there's no inducement
to buy, then it's too late for pick and shovel. We need a bulldozer
or possibly a tactical thermonuclear device.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

ISTM ware types are the map and ware descriptions are the terrain. If
you don't like the terrain you do some landscaping.

ISTM my use of the map/terrain analogy was not very successful, since
nothing here is fixed as nature (terrain), and since the analogy then
lends it self to both sides of the argument, your terrain - my map.

Landscaping, yes all the time, but not by changing a definition and
then applying the new define to axe out apps on the existing
Pricelessware list - *when it is not the app that have changed*, only
the definition. While this might be doable, I think not so without
proper discussions and agreement that this is in fact what the group
intended when approving a new adware definition. (approving is perhaps
not the right word here, suggesting and agreeing upon is perhaps
better) In this case I am guessing few if any who favored the new
adware definition had this in mind. If an existing Pricelessware item
turns adware or payware, I am sure it is SOP to remove it from the
*current* list if the Last FreeWare version can no longer be found
online. But not removing an app that has *not changed* (in the
relevant behavior) simply because a new adware definition for the
"ware types list" received approval from the group.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen