Ware Types - Question for the group

[REMbranded]

Blinky the Shark <[email protected]> wrote:

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Guess you've found a way to filter the shareware authors' posts
announcing their shareware.

Whoops. You got me. I obviously have nothing against pointing out
stray shareware posts as stray shareware posts. I was referring to the
wares on the list of course and didn't quite manage to word it
correctly.

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

Rather than promoting non-freeware here, what's wrong with pointing
the user to alt.comp.shareware or some other resource where help is
readily available?

Nothing, except by the same token, what's wrong with being helpful and
saving them the hassle?

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

Presumably some of the lurkers in category 2 will
eventually become regulars (category 1).

True. That's part of the 'churn' that happens in all systems like this. And not
only will some of the 2's become 1's, but also some of the 1's will disappear,
for all sorts of reasons. (Although some leave, and then come back again.)

Part of the dynamic of any
newsgroup seems to be that the people who participate regularly (that is,
read and post) develop a sense of ownership because of that participation
(and I do not mean that in a negative way). After all, they are the people
who contribute the most.

And that's all part of human nature. I think it's probably fair to say that we
all have some kind of agenda when we take an active part in anything, and that
agenda can range from having some kind of controlling interest to being seen as
a caring sharing sort of guy who likes to help people.

In my personal experience, I have received help
from those folks many times in here, and have gotten my hands on a lot of
good freeware that I would never have heard of on my own.

And so have I, which is why I'm still here, in effect trying to put something
back into the group by helping others who come here, and also hanging around to
get introduced to the newest killer piece of freeware.

But what can also happen is that regulars get so used to the way the
newsgroup runs, they run the risk of overreacting to newbies or others who
want to suggest a different way of doing things. After all, things have been
fine up to now. Some unknown, who starts making all sorts of suggestions
without necessarily having been seen to "do their time", can upset people
who have busted their butts for several years and, in many ways, made the
newsgroup what it is. It's a natural reaction and I would be a hypocrite to
pretend I am above such an emotion.

Again, all part of human nature.

I think this latest definitional issue, prompted by the Dialog controversy,
is one of those occasions. At the risk of sounding spineless, I can see
both sides of the issue. In its simplest expression, the point seems to
be that software can be free, but still not freeware according to the
accepted practices of the newsgroup. I have a little trouble with that
definition, as I have said previously, but I would be a bit of an ass to
simply diss out the regulars without considering the merits of their
argument.

I've not really followed this one, mainly because I don't use 40tude. (I
actually use a commercial offline reader, and found that 40tude didn't do
anything more for me, so stuck with what I have.) As I understand it though,
it's about it being beta, and having an expiry date. Whilst I ca understand the
group's position on such a product, I also understand the software author's
position. Those of us who use 40tude are happy enough to use a piece of
freeware. When a new version is brought out, someone has to test it. Generally,
the author is to best placed to do proper user testing, and he probably doesn't
have the time anyway. Also, I think that we, as users of this freeware, have
some responsibility towards testing this freeware. As a software author, I would
also not be happy that a piece of beta ware was hanging around long after a new
beta or full release of the software was released, hence the expiry date. From a
personal viewpoint, I don't see the problem with someone announcing a beta
release of a freeware product here. How else are we to get a new stable version
of a (free) product.

Just as an aside, I have used beta freeware which has been much more stable
that some full released programs, and I include commercially released software
in that too.

If one presumes for argument's sake that 1000 readers follow this newsgroup
somewhat regularly, and a group poll on an issue results in 70 people
expressing a view, then the other 930 are poorly placed to dispute the
results out of hand. After all, they had the opportunity to "carry the day",
but chose not to exercise it. I think in such a situation, one lives with the
results until the next poll comes around.

And people don't vote for many reasons, ranging from "I can't be bothered" to
"I've not been here long enough to intrude on this group's voting systems".

I would be inclined to wait a few posts to see if anyone else has some
ideas. But if the facts are that there is no decent freeware alternative
available, the I think the OP deserves to know that.

Personally, I'd wait a day or two before making any suggestion. If there was no
reply by then, I'd be tempted to suggest an alternative -ware.

 

[REMbranded]

Given the success of the last "consensus" in stopping these fights, I'm
sure we need another one right?

I think it is important to demonstrate what the current readers of the
group prefer to alleviate such discussions. The original was based on
the majority who presented opinions, why should that be different now?

I'm thinking of a great many who preceeded me here who no longer
participate and I see a great many new members. It is a dynamic
situation in which discourse occurs due to the all too stringent
principles that applied by the majority that expressed an opinion over
~2.5 years ago.

I'm seeing a great many who prefer a slightly broader definition of
what is on topic. The noise from the signal/noise ratio is large due
to the application of the agreed apon principles of many people who
aren't currently present being imposed upon many new people who have a
slightly different perspective on what is on topic. The differences
are not really that great. The noise level is, however.

Recently there was a period of MINIMAL "corrective" posts and it was
the most peaceful I've seen this group. It did not go to pot. It did
not begin recommending lower quality wares. In short, signal/noise was
the closest ratio I've seen in my time here.

Again, a fresh consensus is very valuable. If positive posts are made
to those seeking answers and we bite our tongues when we have no
better recommendations to offer you would be surprised at just how
smoothly (and friendly) this group can be. That is the highest degree
of productive reading possible for those who read in here.

This is an unmoderated group, so corrective posts are simple wastes
that tend to blow up into huge threads. It has been suggested that
someone with the time and a strict view start a moderated group where
things will flow smoothly. I'll read both, for certain. There were no
takers, however. This is the best solution IMO and it is not an act of
congress to make it so.

I can find a google link that begins at ~1400 posts derived from the
simple mention of a cover CD. I imagine that thread would have ended
with less than 20 posts if unmolested. Following this the censors
withdrew somewhat and the group ran perfectly for a period of time. It
was friendly, to the point, productive, there were no exploding
threads and it stayed on topic; the best I've seen. It will require
reading 2-3 months of googled posts to see the drastic changes, but
I'll supply the link if you (or anyone else) wants to study it.

If the above is read it will be clear that a more relaxed atmosphere
provides the most productive environment possible in this unmoderated
group. Given the posts offered here recently I can see a pretty large
change in attitudes, but they are very minor in the grand scheme of
things.

So, yes. I think a fresh consensus is indeed a good idea. If those who
clung to the "majority rules" (I don't necessarily) they should think
of making adjustments in corrective posts.

My wish is for a group that flows smoothly to assist and to further
knowledge to all concerned. I don't mind making a stand from time to
time about my wishes. In the end it depends on the voluntary
cooperation of all involved though.

 

[Aaron]

Hey, how was the first debate settled? The one that your FAQ is based
upon, that is?

There is nothing wrong with getting a fresh consensus is there?

Given the success of the last "consensus" in stopping these fights, I'm
sure we need another one right?


Aaron (my email is not munged!)

 

[Aaron]

I think it is important to demonstrate what the current readers of the
group prefer to alleviate such discussions. The original was based on
the majority who presented opinions, why should that be different now?

The problem is even now, there are people who dispute that there was ever
such a concensus.

I'm seeing a great many who prefer a slightly broader definition of
what is on topic.

And there are others from what I call the "old guard" who would and have
disagreed with those making the same statement above.

And hence the debates continues. As you mention below the differences are
not really that great, so whether the concensus of the group has changed
compared to say 2 years ago, is almost impossible to tell.

So, yes. I think a fresh consensus is indeed a good idea. If those who
clung to the "majority rules" (I don't necessarily) they should think
of making adjustments in corrective posts.

In a reasonable world, if you can get a fresh consensus it would be good.
But in the real world, your chances of getting a consensus that all or
even most will agree on is close to zero. Leaving aside those who don't
believe majority rules of course.

What you get from this thread is more noise. What these threads will
provide is just more material for debates between BOTH those who prefer a
more relaxed definition of what freeware is, and those who prefer a
strict interpretion. I'm certain that within months, each side will refer
to the opinions expressed in this very thread has a point to support
their arguments.

My wish is for a group that flows smoothly to assist and to further
knowledge to all concerned. I don't mind making a stand from time to
time about my wishes. In the end it depends on the voluntary
cooperation of all involved though.

When it comes down to it, what you need is to apply common sense.
Strictly speaking stuff like Opera, mailwasher free , etc are not as
"free" as one would like, but most people accept that it's okay to
mention here.

I don't understand this preoccupation with trying to find a working
definition of freeware that will apply to everything, there will always
be some software that lies in between.

Similarly I'm not sure why there needs to be a distinction between "off
topic but okay to mention" and "on topic". The whole idea of "off topic"
is that's it should be discussed elsewhere isn't it?


I believe a large majority of people would like to know whether a certain
software is ad-supported, time limited, in beta etc. What they don't need
is for people to help them define what freeware is*. It's a personal
choice what they want to use anyway.

The whole problem that arise here is due to the way people act. Some are
perhaps a little too uptight about new posters, while others are ready to
jump at every opportunity at any perceived bullying of newbies.

Just the other day, some guy jumped in and attacked someone else who
apparantly wrote that the poster should first check the pricelessware
list and "defended" the right of the original poster to post here! Of
course, what the attacker missed was that it was just a sig!


IMHO getting another definition of freeware will not solve the problem,
unless it's 100% watertight. What you need to solve the problem is
better posters




* Leaving aside clear cut cases of illegal cracks, where I have not seen
anyone seriously advocate it has being on topic.

Aaron (my email is not munged!)

 

[REMbranded]

The problem is even now, there are people who dispute that there was ever
such a concensus.

Those who tend to impose seem to agree there indeed was a democratic
consensus. Those who impose less, differ. If a new consensus shows
more current visitors here favor a more relaxed atmosphere I don't see
how the old majority can rationalize an escape, even though others
don't give all that much thought to a democratic majority.

And there are others from what I call the "old guard" who would and have
disagreed with those making the same statement above.

What are the current percentages though? Majority seems to be the
keyword. And majority might bounce back and forth over a period of
time.

This is a good time for lurkers to express their views. One per

What you get from this thread is more noise. What these threads will
provide is just more material for debates between BOTH those who prefer a
more relaxed definition of what freeware is, and those who prefer a
strict interpretion. I'm certain that within months, each side will refer
to the opinions expressed in this very thread has a point to support
their arguments.

It was going on when I came here and I'd be surprised it it does not
continue after I'm gone. A risk of excessive noise to alleviate noise
on a long term basis seems to be a good risk.

When it comes down to it, what you need is to apply common sense.
Strictly speaking stuff like Opera, mailwasher free , etc are not as
"free" as one would like, but most people accept that it's okay to
mention here.
Exactly.

I don't understand this preoccupation with trying to find a working
definition of freeware that will apply to everything, there will always
be some software that lies in between.

Similarly I'm not sure why there needs to be a distinction between "off
topic but okay to mention" and "on topic". The whole idea of "off topic"
is that's it should be discussed elsewhere isn't it?

I think it impossible that an unmoderated group stay on topic.

If someone asks a question about Windows or something I prefer to see
someone offer a simple solution than a bunch of people invite them
somewhere else or tell them they are OT. If no simple solution is
forthcoming the thread dies with a single post. I really think most
people can find a better group to ask if no answer is provided here.
Most likely the question is posed by a regular than by someone who
doesn't know where to ask.

I believe a large majority of people would like to know whether a certain
software is ad-supported, time limited, in beta etc. What they don't need
is for people to help them define what freeware is*. It's a personal
choice what they want to use anyway.

Exactly again. The end user decides. All that we can offer is the best
suggestions that we can come up with with as little bickering and/or
redirecting to other places as possible for a friendly and
constructive group.

I've never recommended adware or spyware (to the best of my
knowledge), yet there might be someone out there that chooses to use a
combination of these in order to have the inevitable ads be directed
at an interest, rather than generic ads of no interest. Someone
shopping for a Dell notebook can actually utilize what many of us
consider malwares to attain notebook related ads. That's not my call.
And I don't really think it is the group at large decision either. If
that is the problem offer up a solution or simply pass it up.

The whole problem that arise here is due to the way people act. Some are
perhaps a little too uptight about new posters, while others are ready to
jump at every opportunity at any perceived bullying of newbies.

Different strokes?

Just the other day, some guy jumped in and attacked someone else who
apparantly wrote that the poster should first check the pricelessware
list and "defended" the right of the original poster to post here! Of
course, what the attacker missed was that it was just a sig!

That does happen. It's best to read along and post when there is
something positive to post that addresses the thread content. I've
misread and jumped to the wrong conclusion myself, for what its worth.

Confusing threads and posters happens.

IMHO getting another definition of freeware will not solve the problem,
unless it's 100% watertight. What you need to solve the problem is
better posters

I don't think we need or will ever achieve a watertight situation. I
think it is rational to hope that we understand and respect the
differences though.

* Leaving aside clear cut cases of illegal cracks, where I have not seen
anyone seriously advocate it has being on topic.

We get a warez occasionally. If someone points it out in the header
it's a dead thread.

Aaron (my email is not munged!)

You sound as though you have been around for awhile. Have you been a
lurker? Or would we recognize you by another logon?


------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

 

[Tiger]

Nothing, except by the same token, what's wrong with being helpful
and saving them the hassle?

You're on a slippery slope. If you think it is helpful to suggest a
commercial alternative here, then of course, you're free to do so. If
no one objects, the next time someone does it and someone objects, they
will cry, "foul," and they will be justified. It opens the door for
anyone to suggest any commercial product.

It's just as helpful to suggest a website, an alternative newsgroup,
email the person with your suggestion, or say, "I have a non-freeware
solution, please email me."

--
Tiger

"Zero is where the fun starts
There is too much counting everywhere else."
- Hafiz

 

[Susan Bugher]

So I've noticed, which is why I generally keep quiet unless I can
provide help which no-one else has supplied.

Like helping to prepare the PL2003 web pages. Thanks again.

help will be needed for PL2004 too - hint, hint

Susan

 

[Blinky the Shark]

And people don't vote for many reasons, ranging from "I can't be bothered" to
"I've not been here long enough to intrude on this group's voting systems".

The second would be refreshing counterpoint to the "I've been here two
days and here's how things should work" crowd.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I'm seeing a great many who prefer a slightly broader definition of
what is on topic. The noise from the signal/noise ratio is large due
to the application of the agreed apon principles of many people who
aren't currently present being imposed upon many new people who have a
slightly different perspective on what is on topic. The differences
are not really that great. The noise level is, however.

Nonfreeware recommendations happen *anyway*. Let them remain the exception.
*Legitimizing* them is counterproductive, as it will greatly increase
their population, and once that gate is opened, there will be *no* way to
get the group focus back to *freeware*. We can hang on to what we have, and
what's proved useful, or we can just throw up our hands and give up.
Personally, I believe the group is worth saving.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

* Leaving aside clear cut cases of illegal cracks, where I have not seen
anyone seriously advocate it has being on topic.

People have. Possibly not in the short time you've been here. But
maybe they have then, too -- I don't read every post.

 

[Aaron]

People have. Possibly not in the short time you've been here. But
maybe they have then, too -- I don't read every post.

Perhaps, I have only lurked here since June 2000 or so (I remember
reading about pegasus here) and posted on and off since then. I *think*
I've actively posted only from July 2002. For what's it worth, I've being
using usenet since 96 though I discovered my passion for freeware only
relatively recently.

Anyway I seriously doubt there will be much if any debate on abt whether
cracks should be posted here. Do you disagree?



Aaron (my email is not munged!)

 

[John Corliss]

The question is on-topic vs. off-topic. We have no shortage of heat. IMO
a poll might shed a little light.

Following is a list of the ware types shown in the Pricelessware
Glossary. If you need to refresh your memory of a ware definition see:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/info2003PL.htm#Wares

Please place the number that best expresses your opinion after the ware
name.

1. off-topic - discuss only when a warning is needed
2. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay (for comparison etc.)
3. ???-topic - sometimes okay to discuss
4. on-topic - usually okay to discuss
5. on-topic - always okay to discuss

Susan
-----------

Adware: 1
3
3
Commercial Software: 2
1
1
4
5
3
1
1
4
4
Requestware:

Don't really know what this is.

3

Shareware: 1
1
1
Warez:

1

 

[John Fitzsimons]

There is nothing wrong with getting a fresh consensus is there?

Why do something that isn't needed ? Rather pointless as regards
time/bandwidth. There will always be people like Vic who say that
any "vote" that isn't in agreement with *his* opinion isn't
"legitimate".

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Nothing, except by the same token, what's wrong with being helpful and
saving them the hassle?

Because people come here for freeware. Talking about payware etc. here
wastes people's time, bandwidth.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Perhaps, I have only lurked here since June 2000 or so (I remember
reading about pegasus here) and posted on and off since then. I *think*
I've actively posted only from July 2002. For what's it worth, I've being
using usenet since 96 though I discovered my passion for freeware only
relatively recently.

Anyway I seriously doubt there will be much if any debate on abt whether
cracks should be posted here. Do you disagree?

That depends on how much ground we lose - how much we embrace the slippery
slope of well-not-quite-freeware-but-this-isn't-a-moderated-group,
today.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Because people come here for freeware. Talking about payware etc. here
wastes people's time, bandwidth.

People come here for solutions to their problems.
They want programs which are as "free" as possible.

The best solution is an open source public domain freeware program
which is better than all other alternatives, including commercial
software.

If such a solution is not available he wants to hear about the pro's
and con's of other solutions.

For example: Program A is freeware, program B is better but adware,
and the best program for this task is C, but C is payware.

Open source public domain freeware should be the ultimate goal here,
but any type of ware can be discussed in pursuit of that goal and to
help people find the best program for their needs.

Helping people and a friendly atmosphere is more important that
enforcing any kind of strict rules.

Other people come here to announce good freeware they have found and
want to recommend. It is good if they not only announce a program, but
also compare it with the alternatives, and tell us why this new
program is better somehow than what was available earlier.
Or what special properties this new programs has.
If there is a better program in the pricelessware list there is no
reason to announce the other program.

People who should not post are those who have found a new program
which is less useful than what is already available, and those who
only want to comment on everything that happens, and those who want to
control others, and those who use abusive language, threats,
patronizing comments, people with overheated brains who think they
understand what the world is about, etc..

 

[Susan Bugher]

FYI - Results to Date

Susan

-----------

Ad Beta CD Comm Cripp Demo Dona Free Lite
0 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
1 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
1 3 1 1 1 1 4 5 4
1 3 1 1 1 1 4 5 4
1 3 1 1 1 1 4 5 4
1 3 2 1 1 1 4 5 4
1 3 2 2 1 1 4 5 4
1 3 2 2 1 1 4 5 4
2 3 2 2 1 1 4 5 4
2 4 2 2 1 1 4 5 4
2 4 2 2 1 1 4 5 4
2 4 2 2 2 1 4 5 5
2 4 2 2 2 1 4 5 5
2 4 2 2 2 1 4 5 5
2 4 2 2 2 1 4 5 5
2 4 3 2 2 2 4 5 5
3 4 3 2 3 2 4 5 5
3 4 3 2 3 2 4 5 5
3 4 3 2 3 2 4 5 5
3 4 3 2 3 2 5 5 5
3 4 3 2 3 2 5 5 5
3 5 3 2 3 2 5 5 5
3 5 3 2 3 2 5 5 5
3 5 3 2 3 2 5 5 5
3 5 4 2 4 2 5 5 5
3 5 4 2 4 3 5 5 5
4 5 4 2 4 3 5 5 5
4 5 5 2 4 3 5 5 5
5 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 5

-----------


Mal Nag Orph Reg Requ Shar Spy Trial Warez:
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 0
1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 0
1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 0
1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 3 4 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 4 2 1 2 1
1 2 3 4 4 2 1 2 1
1 2 3 4 4 2 1 2 1
1 2 4 4 4 2 1 2 1
1 3 4 4 4 2 1 2 1
1 3 4 4 5 2 1 2 1
1 3 4 4 5 2 1 2 1
1 3 4 4 5 2 1 3 1
1 3 4 5 5 2 1 3 1
1 3 5 5 5 2 1 3 1
1 3 5 5 5 2 1 3 1
3 4 5 5 5 2 2 3 1
4 4 5 5 -- 2 3 4 1
-- 5 5 5 -- 3 3 5 5


-----------

1. off-topic - discuss only when a warning is needed
2. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay (for comparison etc.)
3. ???-topic - sometimes okay to discuss
4. on-topic - usually okay to discuss
5. on-topic - always okay to discuss

Following is a list of the ware types shown in the Pricelessware
Glossary. If you need to refresh your memory of a ware definition see:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/info2003PL.htm#Wares

-----------

Adware:
Betaware:
CDWare:
Commercial Software:
Crippleware:
Demo-ware:
Donationware:
Freeware:
Liteware:
Malware:
Nagware:
Orphanware/Abandonware:
Registerware:
Requestware:
Shareware:
Spyware:
Trialware:
Warez:

-----------


Responders:

Alastair Smeaton <[email protected]>
Bjorn Simonsen <[email protected]>
Blinky the Shark <[email protected]>
Boomer <[email protected]>
DAN <[email protected]>
Darrien <""Darrien_Lambert\"@[email protected]>
Dewey Edwards <[email protected]>
Harvey Van Sickle <[email protected]>
Jim Scott <[email protected]>
John Corliss <[email protected]#>
OhnO the Clown <[email protected]>
Omar© <[email protected]>
Onno <[email protected]>
(e-mail address removed)
Roger Johansson <[email protected]>
Spooka <[email protected]>
Steve H <[email protected]>
Susan Bugher <[email protected]>
Tech Zero <[email protected]>
Vegard Krog Petersen <[email protected]>
bambam <[email protected]>
burnr <[email protected]>
digitalMOSQUITO <[email protected]>
dkg_ctc <[email protected]>
dszady <[email protected]>
(e-mail address removed)
stan <[email protected]>
(e-mail address removed)
vsj <[email protected]>

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:

let's try that again . . .