A
Anonymous
Randy Bard said:
No offense taken here. The problem is that the FAQ is flawed in
many ways. There are those of us that simply do not agree with
the definitions as they are.
No offense taken here. The problem is that the FAQ is flawed in
many ways. There are those of us that simply do not agree with
the definitions as they are.
R
rtdos
http://q.webring.com/hub?ring=acfwebring
i created the acf webring to not only serve the readers of acf but those
generally surfing the web for freeware. there were quite a few webrings
when i did a search for freeware but most if not all have fallen by the
wayside, offered little if any freeware, poor maintenance, etc. What I hope
to accomplish with this webring is not only to link the popular sites (if
they let me) such as as all4you, freewarehome, moochers, son-of-spy, nonags,
priclessware, etc. with the little known sites that are posted in acf from
time to time (and ones that are not posted but still worth mentioning).
From the webring sidebar: "Join this webring to help promote freeware and
to help freeware authors promote their websites and wares."
I'd like to add as many sites as possible that are recommended by acf
readers (and only if those webmasters will allow it). I can maintain adding
and removing websites (and inviting new members) but I would need volunteers
to verify sites in the webring for freeware.
The webring would give fresh exposure to little known sites with great
programs and reinforce the established sites. It would also allow people to
post their own freeware lists on their own websites without retribution,
heckling, flames, disagreements as their own lists would be on their own
websites (thus no one person or group would be able to micro-define freeware
as countless posts in this group have proved). registerware is not
freeware? donateware is not freeware? cardware is not freeware?
postcardware is not freeware? time trial betaware is not freeware? Who
says? See what I mean?
I'm not doing this to unify acf. I could careless. In fact, I would rather
see it divided. Provides for some lively posts and great debates. Debate
is healthy. After all, look at Gov. Elect Arnold who won by going only to
one debate. That's why an FAQ is worthless at this point for several
reasons. The consensus that voted did so how long ago? and how many of
those people are still around? Who gave whom authority to maintain the FAQ?
See what I mean?
Pricelessware.org, SOS, Moochers, NoNags, FreewareHome are all great sites
but so is cnet (shareware and freeware), winsite, webattack, tucows, etc.
See what I mean? How many programs are on these "other" sites that are not
on the "main" freeware sites? You can't micro-define freeware by what site
its its on or how popular that site is or who maintains that site, etc.
Otherwise some great programs will be missed and the authors wouldn't ever
have a chance to get the word out about their wares. Some authors choose to
exclusively list their programs (besides their website) on one download site
over another. After all they are the ones paying the listing fee, not you
or I. Their choice? Obviously. Their loss? No, its our loss. We're the
ones that would be missing out on such great freeware if we limited
ourselves to one or two sites or one or two opinions.
Right now in less than 24 hrs. we have about 12 members in the ring so we're
off to a great start with the acf webring and I'd like to see it grow. I
think its a great idea that'll benefit all sides; esp. those who use
freeware and those who write freeware.
i created the acf webring to not only serve the readers of acf but those
generally surfing the web for freeware. there were quite a few webrings
when i did a search for freeware but most if not all have fallen by the
wayside, offered little if any freeware, poor maintenance, etc. What I hope
to accomplish with this webring is not only to link the popular sites (if
they let me) such as as all4you, freewarehome, moochers, son-of-spy, nonags,
priclessware, etc. with the little known sites that are posted in acf from
time to time (and ones that are not posted but still worth mentioning).
From the webring sidebar: "Join this webring to help promote freeware and
to help freeware authors promote their websites and wares."
I'd like to add as many sites as possible that are recommended by acf
readers (and only if those webmasters will allow it). I can maintain adding
and removing websites (and inviting new members) but I would need volunteers
to verify sites in the webring for freeware.
The webring would give fresh exposure to little known sites with great
programs and reinforce the established sites. It would also allow people to
post their own freeware lists on their own websites without retribution,
heckling, flames, disagreements as their own lists would be on their own
websites (thus no one person or group would be able to micro-define freeware
as countless posts in this group have proved). registerware is not
freeware? donateware is not freeware? cardware is not freeware?
postcardware is not freeware? time trial betaware is not freeware? Who
says? See what I mean?
I'm not doing this to unify acf. I could careless. In fact, I would rather
see it divided. Provides for some lively posts and great debates. Debate
is healthy. After all, look at Gov. Elect Arnold who won by going only to
one debate. That's why an FAQ is worthless at this point for several
reasons. The consensus that voted did so how long ago? and how many of
those people are still around? Who gave whom authority to maintain the FAQ?
See what I mean?
Pricelessware.org, SOS, Moochers, NoNags, FreewareHome are all great sites
but so is cnet (shareware and freeware), winsite, webattack, tucows, etc.
See what I mean? How many programs are on these "other" sites that are not
on the "main" freeware sites? You can't micro-define freeware by what site
its its on or how popular that site is or who maintains that site, etc.
Otherwise some great programs will be missed and the authors wouldn't ever
have a chance to get the word out about their wares. Some authors choose to
exclusively list their programs (besides their website) on one download site
over another. After all they are the ones paying the listing fee, not you
or I. Their choice? Obviously. Their loss? No, its our loss. We're the
ones that would be missing out on such great freeware if we limited
ourselves to one or two sites or one or two opinions.
Right now in less than 24 hrs. we have about 12 members in the ring so we're
off to a great start with the acf webring and I'd like to see it grow. I
think its a great idea that'll benefit all sides; esp. those who use
freeware and those who write freeware.
N
nic
I really think it is good that you did the whole freeware ring thing
BUT
here lies the problem - you are going to have to be difficult in terms of
who joins.
I love freeware games but as soon as i see 'shareware' etc i get pissed off.
independent software developors are out there for the fun of making stuff -
not too make some money. (though we do like it)
BUT
here lies the problem - you are going to have to be difficult in terms of
who joins.
I love freeware games but as soon as i see 'shareware' etc i get pissed off.
independent software developors are out there for the fun of making stuff -
not too make some money. (though we do like it)
B
Benjamin Racinot
If you want your webring to be popular and successful, I think you
need to start over with strict membership criteria: freeware only, no
adware, shareware, registrationware, or gimmickware of any kind.
B
Blinky the Shark
Alternitively, he could allow all of that and just change the name to
alt.comp.anythingware webring. That would also remove the
misrepresentation that using the name alt.comp.freeware creates, when
it's really an rtdos webring.
G
Gary R. Schmidt
Well, I've looked at all 11 sites as of 20031029 23:10 AEST.rtdos said:
rtdos - has one free chat program, in Java, and a games section under
construction. Free, but not much chop.
Remco's Screensavers - didn't go past the first page.
Geek of the Week - 4 downloads, 2 start up screens, 2 videos.
free software downloads - a good-looking list of links for audio stuff,
if I had the time and the inclination , I trace a bit further.
Key Designs - has some of their own free programs and links to others,
but again, not much chop.
Cree8 - purports to have a "browseable list" of free software, first
category "Audio/Video" had 0 entries, I looked at "desktop", it had 4,
but empty slots like that mean I won't go back.
Numbware - 3 free programs, 1 utility and 2 games.
Decent Downloads - I have to say this is one of those web-pages that
belongs on a "how noto to do it" list. Ugh! And it's by a fellow
Aussie, must be from up north and the sun's burnt their eyes out! Lots
of stuff listed, but I had to close it before I went blind.
Brandon's Dos Games - had to agree not to re-sell what's there, no
problem with that, but the framed pages don't exist. Non-frames works,
sort of, but underlying pages aren't found. After 2 404s, I won't be back.
Home Budget Software - Only 1 free program, other 3 are pay-ware,
freebie appears to be a currency converter. Bye bye.
Inet SOftware - have to register to download, no real problem with that,
but the site is an abomination, so strike that one.
So, 1 good site, a couple of okay sites, I'd say that it's a complete
failure as of now.
I also concur with Blinky "it's really an rtdos webring" not an ACF webring.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
R
rtdos
Gary R. Schmidt said:
I wouldn't say its a failure. I'm not conforming to any one micro
definition of freeware. Besides, I've yet to have time to add freeeware to
my own website.
)
H
Henk de Jong
"rtdos" <[email protected]> schreef in
When you are not conforming to any one micro definition of
freeware, how do you define 'freeware' for the webring?
Besides that, when you want the webring to carry the name of ACF,
the least thing you could do is to link to the FAQ of this
newsgroup on John F's pages, so visitors can also read about this
newsgroup, and to learn about 'freeware'.
I wouldn't say its a failure. I'm not conforming to any one
micro definition of freeware. Besides, I've yet to have time
to add freeeware to my own website.
When you are not conforming to any one micro definition of
freeware, how do you define 'freeware' for the webring?
Besides that, when you want the webring to carry the name of ACF,
the least thing you could do is to link to the FAQ of this
newsgroup on John F's pages, so visitors can also read about this
newsgroup, and to learn about 'freeware'.
H
Henk de Jong
By the way, my remark doesn't mean that I won't support a webring
for freeware sites. I think it's a great idea, and I hope that a
lot of freeware authors will join this ring. Only, when you call
it the ACF-webring, it should be according the rules in the FAQ.
R
rtdos
Henk de Jong said:
Like I said in my OP, "(thus no one person or group would be able to
micro-define freeware as countless posts in this group have proved).
registerware is not freeware? donateware is not freeware? cardware is not
freeware?
postcardware is not freeware? time trial betaware is not freeware? Who
says?"
JC Took down "his" FAQ (which is not the ACF FAQ IMHO). If I were to go by
the rules of the FAQ then I think its time with all the new definitions
since the "original FAQ" to re-create the FAQ and update it periodically
(the old FAQ was never updated with majority group approval IMHO). Alot of
the people who were around when the FAQ was created are probably not around
anymore. So it doesn't make any sense to keep such an outdated FAQ without
updating it from time to time (which it has not been) with majority group
approval.
R
rtdos
nic said:
Thats where things tend to get sticky. Certainly you don't prevent yourself
from downloading from cnet, tucows, webattack, or winsite do you? Those
sites offer both shareware AND freeware. Not to mention the fact a lot of
freeware authors post their wares on these few sites and not on
Priclessware, NoNags, Moochers, etc. (and they're the ones paying any
listing fee not your or I) The two problems I have with total freeware
sites are: LINKS & VERSIONS (both usually but not always outdated). You
gotta remember, freeware is free to us but not to the author. It takes them
time and money to create these awesome programs.
R
Randy Bard
Hope this doesn't cause offense, but I believe that if you are not
willing to abide by the definitions in the ACF FAQ as it stands, you
should not use ACF in the name of your webring. Please change the
name.
H
Henk de Jong
T
Tiger
Agreed.
R
Roger Johansson
The opinions of this group have recently been shown, both in the
recent poll and by individual messages.
The rules which were created years ago are clearly antiquated and do
no longer express the views of the current readers and participators.
As far as I can see we have one group of people who are struggling to
keep the old rules, and another group of readers who do not want the
old rules and do not want to see all the bickering about them.
These two groups seem to be equal in numbers at the moment.
Conclusion: There is no consensus about the old rules in the group
today. The recent poll and messages from many individuals express the
will of the current users of the group.
The old rules are irrelevant today. If we were to formulate the
current will of the group in rules they would not look like the old
rules.
M
Mister Charlie
rtdos said:
I would suppose that if anything other than real 'free'ware were clearly
delineated and easy to avoid, it would be no worse than any mixed media
site. The real test would be how MUCH 'free'ware is available, what
manner of programming is it and whether said programs are, in fact, any
good.
F
futureworlds
It's always best when programs are marked "Adware,Nagware" and
so on, but there are heaps of sites that don't make it clear.
Sometimes you just have to take that chance and download a
program.
I don't think judging if programs are "any good" is a very
practicle thing. You might absolutely love a program and
someone else might think it sucks. I think that like the
definition of freeware what makes a program "good" is a personal
thing.
M
Mister Charlie
futureworlds said:It's always best when programs are marked "Adware,Nagware" and
so on, but there are heaps of sites that don't make it clear.
Sometimes you just have to take that chance and download a
program.
I don't think judging if programs are "any good" is a very
practicle thing. You might absolutely love a program and
someone else might think it sucks. I think that like the
definition of freeware what makes a program "good" is a personal
thing.
Well, by 'good' I guess I meant that it does what it advertises, does
not harm most systems, and is used and enjoyed by those who have it.
Still kinda vague tho, huh?
D
dszady
Political>
Fact: You can link to any site you like as long as you are careful about
"deep linking". Also, the law states that any non-commercial site that has
a lot of traffic can be construed as a commercial site because it is
indirectly pointing consumers to or from a commercial site, if so exists.
Question: What the **** are search engines?
But all-in-all this a good idea.
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
I guess the string "alt.comp.freeware" is public domain, so there was
nothing to stop you. But IMO creating a webring that will no doubt be
associated with this newsgroup should have been a decision of the
newgroup.
For example, that would have been a good thing to post before you
unilaterally created the ring and started sending out invitations.
I've snipped all you wrote about your agenda, but that stuff is enough
to keep me from contributing to running your webring.