[PL] PL2006 General Discussion

[Susan Bugher]

This thread is for general discussion. This year's schedule:

September 15 -October 14, 2005 - Candidate program description submittals. Category and ware discussion.
October 15 - October 31, 2005 - Program nominations, seconds and program discussion.
November 1 - November 7, 2005 Voting period
November 8, 2005 - Vote Results Posted
November 9, 2005 - Preliminary Pricelessware List Posted
November 9 - November 15, 2005 - Final Selection Discussion
November 16, 2005 - Final Pricelessware List Posted


Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

IMO some of the programs that have been submitted as candidates for PL2006 don't have a hope in hell
of getting a second. I'm not particularly enthused about the prospect of spending long hours doing
*frivolous* programs descriptions OR the prospect of seeing them on the PL2006 nominations list for
all eternity. . .

ISTM that there should be a way to remove programs from consideration before the nominations period
begins. IMO one way to do this is to allow candidate programs to be challenged. I suggest this
procedure: if a program is challenged by a newsgroup participant two people would have to indicate
that they consider it a *worthy* candidate for the PL. Challenged programs that do not receive an
endorsement from a second person would be omitted from further consideration - they would not be
listed when nominations begin.

and (of course) I would not prepare descriptions for challenged programs until they receive an
endorsement from a second person.

Comments please.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[miskairal]

I'm not sure which programmes you are referring to but maybe Tombo is
one as it seems little known?

In the submittals thread there is a post about Irfanview being Adware. I
have version 3.85 and can see no ads so maybe that version could be
included rather than the current 3.97 which I assume is an Adware version.

Where has everyone gone this year or am I not getting all the posted
submittals (I can only see submittals from Bjorn Simonsen, MLC, Whirled
Peas(like the name) and REM)? I've been around acf for a couple of years
now and this is the first time I've attempted to submit programme
particulars. In the past everyone else seemed to know what they were
doing and I didn't understand what was required but this year I felt I
had to put in the effort and hoped I would get it right. On dialup it
took me many hours to do but Susan puts in more hours than any of us
could know to provide us all with this. I've read a couple of posts
where it has been stated that you don't know how (know the feeling) but
if you are willing to post what you do know about a programme I will
have a go at gathering the required info for Susan or you can email me -
miskairal [at] [gmail] [dot] [com] and put acf in the subject line.

I'm not trying to be presumptuous, just trying to keep the dream alive.

Cheers
miskairal

 

[Susan Bugher]

I'm not sure which programmes you are referring to but maybe Tombo is
one as it seems little known?

Nope. I'm thinking of other things. . .

ATM anyone can submit as many program descriptions as they like. I think it's reasonable to ask for
a second opinion in doubtful cases. A couple of examples: I did a newsgroup search for Babya Logic
yesterday. The only favorable mention I could find was from the author. One person has submitted
descriptions for 4 ESTSoft programs. Those descriptions all say *Freeware*. The web site says: "
ALSee, ALFTP, and ALPass are currently in beta and only available to registered users." There's
never been much Registerware on the PL - a program has to be pretty special to overcome that handicap.

I did a 12 hour stint yesterday. . . there will be a lot more long days before the PL selection
process is complete. IMO checking, revising and inputting frivolous program descriptions is an
unnecessary burden. Asking for a second endorsement in doubtful cases is a very mild test. If an app
can't pass that test before the end of the PL program description period I think it should be
removed from further consideration.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)




--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Whirled Peas]

Nope. I'm thinking of other things. . .

ATM anyone can submit as many program descriptions as they like. I think it's reasonable to ask for
a second opinion in doubtful cases. A couple of examples: I did a newsgroup search for Babya Logic
yesterday. The only favorable mention I could find was from the author. One person has submitted
descriptions for 4 ESTSoft programs. Those descriptions all say *Freeware*. The web site says: "
ALSee, ALFTP, and ALPass are currently in beta and only available to registered users." There's
never been much Registerware on the PL - a program has to be pretty special to overcome that handicap.

I wasn't quite certain what the take on having to register at a
website would be. You have to give them a name and a working email
address, which they use to send you the (very) occassional email
saying, "Hey, we have a new version, here's a link."

Since there is no cost invoilved, I decided to call them freeware and
submit them.

I wasn't aware ALFTP is still in Beta at version 4.
I think ALSee is the only product currently in beta.

But, I've been known to be worng.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I wasn't quite certain what the take on having to register at a
website would be.

The ware definition seems clear to me. If you have to register to obtain the program it's
Registerware.

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

"Registerware: you must provide personal information via registration in order to download and/or
use the program"

You have to give them a name and a working email

address, which they use to send you the (very) occassional email
saying, "Hey, we have a new version, here's a link."

Perhaps you registered a while back. These are the current requirements:

<Q>
Registration at ALTools.net is 100% FREE - like all ALTools.
Note: Membership to this portal is Verified. Once your account information has been submitted, you
will receive an email containing your unique Verification Code. The Verification Code will be
required the first time you attempt to sign in to the portal environment. All fields marked with an
asterisk (*) are required.

First Name: *
Street: Street Is Required.
Unit#:
City: *City Is Required.
Country: Country is Required.
State: Region Is Required.
Zip Code: Postal Code Is Required.
Telephone: Telephone Number Is Required.
Last Name: *
Username: *
Password: *
Confirm: *
Email: *

</Q>

Registerware is not an easy sell in this newsgroup. Of the 207 programs on PL2005 only 3 are
Registerware (Speakonia, CDCheck, Yankee Clipper III). Do you think ALSee, ALFTP, and ALPass will
receive seconds if you nominate them for PL2006?

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Eric]

The ware definition seems clear to me. If you have to register to obtain the program it's
Registerware.

I agree. I checked it out also and almost commented back at the time
that all the products seemed to be registerware.

While I don't mind the occasional mention here (though I would have
liked to have seen the warning in the e-mail), I don't feel that
pricelessware should list them because of that.

Eric

 

[Whirled Peas]

Registerware is not an easy sell in this newsgroup. Of the 207 programs on PL2005 only 3 are
Registerware (Speakonia, CDCheck, Yankee Clipper III). Do you think ALSee, ALFTP, and ALPass will
receive seconds if you nominate them for PL2006?

You certainly did your homework far better than I. No, I doubt the
three for which you must register would receive a second. I'll not
pursue it.

ALZip can stay in the pool since it can be downloaded and used without
any registration requirements, though I may very well be the only one
here who uses it.

Thanks for helping a (relative) freeware newb!

 

[Susan Bugher]

The Program Description thread is getting cluttered. Let's try to keep it clean. Please post
*complete* descriptions. If you have a question post the description *after* you have the answer.
Before you make a significant change in a previous program description discuss it with the group.
Post the description *after* there is a consensus of opinion.

Please use the appropriate ware descriptions. Ware definitions are here:

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

This isn't rocket science. . . If the version/file is a Beta it's Betaware. If the author asks for
donations it's Donationware. If the author makes some other request (send a postcard, donate to a
charity etc. etc.) it's Requestware. If you have to register to obtain the app it's Registerware.
Programs that have a "big brother" are Liteware. etc. etc.

re the files in the download description. List only Windows files. From the Procedures page: "If a
program has both ZIP and EXE versions include both. If a program has many versions (such as XnView)
include 1-3 versions." People that install files from the PL2006 CD may not be on-line. Give them
the information they need. If you list two files - one for Win 9x/ME and one for Win NT/2000/XP note
that information. If the Language description lists multiple languages (not language packs) and the
version you list is English only note that information. Think about the questions you might have if
you saw those files and give the answers.

If you have questions about preparing descriptions please post them in this thread. TIA

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[miskairal]

What's the difference between a programme that is discontinued and one
that has not been updated in years?

eg. eCleaner is discontinued (as stated by the author) but still
available, Convert has not been updated in years either so should it be
called "discontinued"?

In my opinion both programmes do what they are meant to do and don't
need updating.

Also wondering about the category for eCleaner?
SYSTEM UTILITIES: Cataloger: Disk Space

Does anyone else think this should go in as
INTERNET: Email Tool

I know you can edit rtf files with it but that's not what most people
would use if for.

Cheers
miskairal

 

[Susan Bugher]

What's the difference between a programme that is discontinued and one
that has not been updated in years?

eg. eCleaner is discontinued (as stated by the author) but still
available, Convert has not been updated in years either so should it be
called "discontinued"?

Nope - it may be just resting (a la Keynote). An app is "discontinued" when the author says it is.

In my opinion both programmes do what they are meant to do and don't
need updating.

Also wondering about the category for eCleaner?
SYSTEM UTILITIES: Cataloger: Disk Space

Does anyone else think this should go in as
INTERNET: Email Tool

How about TEXT 1.03 Text Tool: Email Stripper? See:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_TEXT.php#0901-PW

My eyes were crossed when I copied the Category info from the ACF database.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:08:50 -0400, Susan Bugher


You certainly did your homework far better than I. No, I doubt the
three for which you must register would receive a second. I'll not
pursue it.

ALZip can stay in the pool since it can be downloaded and used without
any registration requirements, though I may very well be the only one
here who uses it.

Thanks for helping a (relative) freeware newb!

Thank you for the gracious withdrawal of those three apps. I appreciate your consideration.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[miskairal]

Nope - it may be just resting (a la Keynote). An app is
"discontinued" when the author says it is.



How about TEXT 1.03 Text Tool: Email Stripper? See:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_TEXT.php#0901-PW

My eyes were crossed when I copied the Category info from the ACF
database.

Certainly a whole lot better that Cataloger

 

[aafuss]

I agree with you on the better category.

 

[Mike Bourke]

At the same time, I don't think that a possibly useful program should be
ignored just because it's registerware. I would certainly encourage the
submission of such programs to the pricelessware list; it's just that they
have an extra burdon to overcome when it comes time to vote.

Mike Bourke

 

[Susan Bugher]

At the same time, I don't think that a possibly useful program should be
ignored just because it's registerware. I would certainly encourage the
submission of such programs to the pricelessware list; it's just that they
have an extra burdon to overcome when it comes time to vote.

Pricelessware is "the best of the best". Programs that are nominated for the Pricelessware List
should have some small claim to that distinction. The proposed "extra burden" for a few programs is
a reality check - a requirement to show support for the program *before* it is placed in nomination.

The requirement should be added because. . .

One person can propose any program they like and as many programs as they like. There are some
drawbacks to that procedure. A. A. Fussy has proposed 5 of his own programs (so far) as candidates
for PL2006. A. A. Fussy's programs have been critiqued in the newsgroup as unusable or barely usable.

A reality check is needed to put a stop to abuse of the Pricelessware selection process. The
proposed procedure is simple. If a "challenged" program has two supporters it is added to the list
of candidates for nomination. If it has only one supporter it's removed from consideration.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

The requirement should be added because. . .

One person can propose any program they like and as many programs as they like. There are some
drawbacks to that procedure. A. A. Fussy has proposed 5 of his own programs (so far) as candidates
for PL2006. A. A. Fussy's programs have been critiqued in the newsgroup as unusable or barely usable.

A reality check is needed to put a stop to abuse of the Pricelessware selection process. The
proposed procedure is simple. If a "challenged" program has two supporters it is added to the list
of candidates for nomination. If it has only one supporter it's removed from consideration.

I think John Fitzsimon's suggestion in
<[email protected]> should be considered as a
additional "filter".

Quoting John's suggestion:

"Any program/programmer who spams the ACF newsgroup and/or acts
as a serial pest is precluded from nominating his/her own
program(s) and/or having them nominated as PL."

We can of course suspend such a rule in any particular case, say for
example if a number of group members considers the software written by
the "spammer/flooder" in quesiton exceptionally good/useful.


All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Susan Bugher wrote in <[email protected]>:

I think John Fitzsimon's suggestion in
<[email protected]> should be considered as a
additional "filter".

Quoting John's suggestion:

"Any program/programmer who spams the ACF newsgroup and/or acts
as a serial pest is precluded from nominating his/her own
program(s) and/or having them nominated as PL."

We can of course suspend such a rule in any particular case, say for
example if a number of group members considers the software written by
the "spammer/flooder" in quesiton exceptionally good/useful.

The above recommendation IMO is better than Susan's because her idea
ignores the fact that people who are spammers and/or pests here are
likely to use sock puppets.

It would (might ?) also act as a deterrent to people who want to get
their stuff on the PL list. If they spam and/or are a pest then it
won't get listed.

Regards, John.
--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Susan Bugher]

I wasn't aware ALFTP is still in Beta at version 4.
I think ALSee is the only product currently in beta.

FYI - thought you might be wondering where I found the info.

http://www.estsoft.com/en/NewsRoom/tabid/54/Default.aspx

<q>
ALZip v6.1 Beta Released (International Version)
8/23/2005 12:00:00 AM (52 reads)
ESTsoft annouces the beta release of ALZip v6.1, the popular free compression and archiving tool for
Windows.
</q>

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[ggrothendieck]

Susan, This is too late for this year but I noticed that
there exists a standard xml description format for software
that is apparently used by many software distribution sites. Maybe
it could be useful, especially if descriptions are already available
in that format (or maybe its only applicable to shareware or
commercial software -- I haven't investigated it):
http://www.asp-shareware.org/pad/