Ware Types - Question for the group

[Roger Johansson]

Data collected from a self- selecting subset of a population, such as
this, has virtually no statistical validity.

To calculate median and standard deviation on this kind of material
would be rather useless, but the average numbers are meaningful.

The average numbers are valid because the values 1 to 5 are a scale
from very low approval to very high approval, ust as somebody else
with some knowledge about math also wrote today.
(It would be different if the numbers 1 to 5 stood for totally
unrelated things.)

The vote shows the views of the subset of the readers who wanted to
vote and wanted to show their views.

If some people do not want to vote it is their right not to vote, but
then they have no influence on the result, of course.

 

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

I disagree with your example.It could be argued that while we are
talking about catergorial data , the poll is on an ordinal scale
(eg from most favourite to least favourite, from less ontopic to
most on topic) and not on a nominal scale (red,green,yellow etc)

The difference is that you can order the choices and count them,
but you can't measure. For nominal data, you can't even order
them.

I chose colors of the visible spectrum precisely because the are
ordered and do correspond to frequencies; they work just as well as
1-5 here. The numbers 1-5 were chosen as a nominal "scale", as
Susan has made clear.

That would be on an interval scale. That would mean as you pointed
out choosing a (2) means X times stronger then choosing a (1) and
(3) is X times stronger then (2).

I mentioned a linear scale for simplicity's sake. Maybe we should
try a logarithmic scale.

You have to somehow operationalise the words "usually",
"sometimes".

Any attempts to operationalize "usually" and "sometimes" would IMO
be a waste of time, if only because there would be no concensus on
how to do so.

For what's it worth when manually counting modes, in most cases
there is another choice that has 1 or 2 less votes then the mode.
This probably relates to the fact that in the voting scale, the
difference between say

1. off-topic - discuss only when a warning is needed
2. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay (for comparison etc.)

Is too vague, and it's probably a coin toss.

Maybe so. I'd argue that the two are qualitatively different
choices but they are not differentiable in a quantifiable way, then
I'd use that to back up my assertion that these things were not put
on a meaningful 'scale' in the first place, that the labels were
nominal, not ordinal. If I had time. Heh.

Of course the problems of mean versus median when dealing with
extreme values is well known, but in this case it doesn't really
make a big difference. Both measures have their place, if you know
what you are doing. In our case, it doesn't really make a
difference.

That's what I meant to convey when I typed "does not have any
bearing."

 

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

To calculate median and standard deviation on this kind of
material would be rather useless, but the average numbers are
meaningful.

You mean the mean when you say 'average.' If means were useful,
medians and standard deviations would also be useful to consider,
yet you dismiss them out-of-hand.

The average numbers are valid because the values 1 to 5 are a
scale from very low approval to very high approval, ust as
somebody else with some knowledge about math also wrote today.

The alleged 'scale' was not chosen to be a scale. You could just as
easily go back and reassign the numbers -500, -400, 27, 85000, and
1000000 to the five choices (and toss in an extra number, say
-21658, for the extra option some posters included when they voted),
call it a scale from low to high, and start computing means and
medians. Your results would still not be a good way to distill the
results to numerical values.

 

[BoB]

Adware: 1
Betaware: 3
CDWare: 1
Commercial Software: 1
Crippleware: 3
Demo-ware: 1
Donationware: 3
Freeware: 5
Liteware: 3
Malware: 1
Nagware: 1
Orphanware/Abandonware: 3
Registerware: 3
Requestware: 3
Shareware: 1
Spyware: 1
Trialware: 1
Warez: 1

BoB
For the duration of Swen, my address is inoperative.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Latest results - 31 responses

Ad Beta CD Comm Cripp Demo Dona Free Lite

0 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
0 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
1 3 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 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 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 2 2 2 1 4 5 5
2 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 4 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 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 0 2 3 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 3 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 1 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 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


------------

Alastair Smeaton <[email protected]>
Bjorn Simonsen <[email protected]>
Blinky the Shark <[email protected]>
BoB <[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]#>
Klaatu <[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]>

-----------

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:

-----------

 

[Aaron]

I chose colors of the visible spectrum precisely because the are
ordered and do correspond to frequencies; they work just as well as
1-5 here.

LOL, by your definition any data set can be considered ordinal since you
could "order" any choice in some bizare way. Any set of chocies can be
arranged Alphabetically for instance. Clearly that makes no sense.

The difference between choosing the favourite color, and choosing the
degree of "on-topicness" is pretty clear , if you think about it.
In one scale, a voter choosing 3, would strictly imply he prefers 3 to 2
and 2 to 1. In your color example, a voter who prefers Yellow, tells you
that he prefers yellow, period.

The numbers 1-5 were chosen as a nominal "scale", as
Susan has made clear.

That might or might not be the intent, but if you look at the sample quite
a few people chose 0. That makes no sense if it was a nominal scale.
It would make ,some (admitedly not much) sense if people saw it as a
ordinal scale.

Any attempts to operationalize "usually" and "sometimes" would IMO
be a waste of time, if only because there would be no concensus on
how to do so.

I never said it would be easy. An ordinal scale is the best you can do. A
Likert scale or something similar.

Maybe so. I'd argue that the two are qualitatively different
choices but they are not differentiable in a quantifiable way,

The choices can be qualitatively different and still be ordered. For a data
set to be catergorically (either ordinal or nominal), all that is required
is for the choices to be discrete, in some cases (ordinal), the choices can
be ordered.

I don't believe being able to quantify your choices exactly is a necessary
condition to ordering them. Look at the Likert scale again.



In any case, if the choices were meant to be nominal
(red,yellow,green,blue) the order of the choices and the wording given was
misleading , because they were arranged in what one might expect to be in
order of severity from most on topic to least on-topic.


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

Notice the frequency of "okay to discuss" increases. This looks like a
ordinal scale to me, rather then something closer to your color example.



then

I'd use that to back up my assertion that these things were not put
on a meaningful 'scale' in the first place, that the labels were
nominal, not ordinal. If I had time. Heh.

Running away , I see

That's what I meant to convey when I typed "does not have any
bearing."

No, I'm wondering why you are bashing on our friend the "mean" with your
story even though sensitivity to extreme values isn't really important
here.





Aaron (my email is not munged!)

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

You are doing some interesting things - now I *really* have to resist
temptation - and not ask more about them.

Fair enough

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

Nope. Try reading the name of the newsgroup. Newsgroups have different
names for a reason.

< snip >

If you're going to quote, quote the full sentence in context; don't snip
the bit that would make your reply nonsense.

Even if I didn't agree with your arguments, I did respect them - until
now.

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

I hope more people will respond to the poll.

Sorry, just realised I haven't voted yet.

Adware: 1
Betaware: 3
CDWare: 1
Commercial Software: 1
Crippleware: 1
Demo-ware: 1
Donationware: 4
Freeware: 5
Liteware: 3
Malware: 0
Nagware: 1
Orphanware/Abandonware: 5
Registerware: 4
Requestware: 4
Shareware: 1
Spyware: 0
Trialware: 1
Warez: 0

A few comments:

I'm not sure about the difference between 1 and 2. Even if it's for
comparison, I think a warning/statement of the ware type is necessary.

Donationware/Requestware - It's still basically freeware; you're not
obliged to donate anything.

Abandonware - I assume this is commercial-/share-ware that has been
made free with no commitment to provide any further updates. I would
imagine that 90% of freeware authors give no commitment to further
updates on their software.

Registerware - I would assume that most authors would like to know how
well their product is doing and registering will go partway to
providing that information. I do use a throwaway email address for such
occasions.

HTH

 

[REMbranded]

<quote>
Orphanware/Abandonware: software that the original author or company no
longer offers to the public (used when author cannot be located or
company is no longer in existence). May not be freeware. May not be
legal to obtain and use it.
</quote>

That's why the vote made no sense to me. I hadn't read that
definition. My mistake.

IMO the sometimes/usually/always on-topic *votes* may be more a
difference in *style (for lack of a better word)* than a difference in
substance.

IMO a response with 5 for Orphanware/Abandonware *combined* with a 1 for
Warez means: if the Warez is excluded *first* the *remaining* programs
are always on-topic. FWIW: I gave Orphanware/Abandonware a 3 because it
includes some Warez. I gave Warez a 1. Sounds to me like we are in
agreement but our *votes* are not.

Yes, I think so. Warez is always OT to me and using a program against
the EULA is warez. That leaves the programs that are legal to use even
if the author or company cannot be contacted. These two should be
mutually exclusive sets really, as warez is warez and orphaned
freeware is something very different.

Where would Proxomitron reside given this definition?


------------ 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 ----

 

[Roger Johansson]

That's why the vote made no sense to me. I hadn't read that
definition. My mistake.

You had not read Susan's new re-definition of abandonware yet.
Most people thought it was about abandoned freeware.

But Susan had to throw in a new definition to save the strict rules.
So now we understand that it is about illegal non-freeware.
And this complicates things, even for her own team members.

Where would Proxomitron reside given this definition?

Proxomitron cannot be placed in any category now.

If we add this, the capitalized section, to all categories, as I
suspect Susan wants to do, except to the "Free" category, then all
categories except "Free" will get 0 from the voters, and the purity of
alt.comp.freeware is salvaged.

The best result for the strict rules people would, of course, be that
the "Free" category had gotten a 5 from all voters, and all other
categories had gotten a 1.

Now they have to redefine the definitions to get more "correct"
results in the future.

 

[Susan Bugher]

That's why the vote made no sense to me. I hadn't read that
definition. My mistake.




Yes, I think so. Warez is always OT to me and using a program against
the EULA is warez. That leaves the programs that are legal to use even
if the author or company cannot be contacted. These two should be
mutually exclusive sets really, as warez is warez and orphaned
freeware is something very different.

An app oftens fit into more than one ware category . . .

It could be: Commercial software, Shareware, Crippleware, and Spyware
all at the same time. Of course most of us would just call it POSware .
.. .

Where would Proxomitron reside given this definition?

AFAIK it's not Orphanware/Abandonware <q>(used when author cannot be
located or company is no longer in existence)</q>- hasn't the author
given permission for distribution?

Susan

 

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

LOL, by your definition any data set can be considered ordinal
since you could "order" any choice in some bizare way. Any set of
chocies can be arranged Alphabetically for instance. Clearly that
makes no sense.

Alphabetical really makes no sense as an ordering to you? The
colors of the spectrum are not ordered in a bizarre way, either.
Well, ok, maybe rainbows are a bit bizarre.

Any finite set can be well-ordered, as you know - it is not a
definition of mine. Sometimes it is not useful to do so. In the case
of the straw poll, I disagree with you about the usefulness and
meaningfulness of doing so.

The difference between choosing the favourite color, and choosing
the degree of "on-topicness" is pretty clear

I never brought up the notion of people choosing their favorite
colors, and I am not sure why you have done so now. I agree with
you that choosing a degree of acceptability would be different than
choosing a favorite color.

In your color example, a voter who
prefers Yellow, tells you that he prefers yellow, period.

No. You have misunderstood the color example. It was never about a
preference of color. Best if I drop it now, I suppose.

I never said it would be easy. An ordinal scale is the best you
can do. A Likert scale or something similar.

I agree. A Likert scale would be the way to go; despite its
inadequacies, it's the best system I know of for such a thing.

But this poll did not use the Likert model, and it is being analyzed
as though it did.

I don't believe being able to quantify your choices exactly is a
necessary condition to ordering them. Look at the Likert scale
again.

They can't be quantified exactly, and I agree with you that it is
not necessary to do so to devise a poll with meaningful results.
OTOH, using simple means to analyze the results of Likert polls
implicitly assumes that the responses are roughly equidistant in
'strength.' Means are by their nature weighted. (I know that it's
possible and sometimes desirable to weight the responses
differently, but I don't see a reason to do so to guage the
acceptability of various things in a.c.f.)

In any case, if the choices were meant to be nominal
(red,yellow,green,blue) the order of the choices and the wording
given was misleading , because they were arranged in what one
might expect to be in order of severity from most on topic to
least on-topic.

I agree. Susan has stated that she regretted the way she did
specifically that.

No, I'm wondering why you are bashing on our friend the "mean"
with your story

Sometimes a story is only a story. The phrase "does not have any
bearing" was used to indicate you should not attach the significance
you have to it.

 

[Susan Bugher]

You had not read Susan's new re-definition of abandonware yet.

LOL - see the May 2003 *Pricelessware Info Page* thread here (181 posts):

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=....comp.freeware&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en

Susan

 

[REMbranded]

AFAIK it's not Orphanware/Abandonware <q>(used when author cannot be
located or company is no longer in existence)</q>- hasn't the author
given permission for distribution?

Yes, but it is no longer supported to my knowledge. The author has
become impossible to contact too. The permission for redistribution
was in before the author checked out.

It is abandoned freeware IINM.

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your
customers drift off to free webmail services install your own
web gateway!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ----

 

[Boomer]

Yes, but it is no longer supported to my knowledge. The author
has become impossible to contact too. The permission for
redistribution was in before the author checked out.

It is abandoned freeware IINM.

http://www.proxomitron.info/45/help/Contacts.html

 

[Susan Bugher]

Latest results - 32 responses

Ad Beta CD Comm Cripp Demo Dona Free Lite

0 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
0 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
1 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
1 3 1 1 1 1 4 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 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 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 2 2 2 1 4 5 5
2 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 4 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 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 0 2 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 2 3 1 0 1 0
1 1 1 3 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 0
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 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 1
1 1 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 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 4 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 5 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

------------

Alastair Smeaton <[email protected]>
Bjorn Simonsen <[email protected]>
Blinky the Shark <[email protected]>
BoB <[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]#>
Klaatu <[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)
(e-mail address removed)
stan <[email protected]>
(e-mail address removed)
vsj <[email protected]>

-----------

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:

-----------

 

[BillR]

I've been resisting this thread. I have problems with the definitions
and available options, but here goes.

Adware: 3
Betaware: 3
CDWare: 2
Commercial Software: 2
Crippleware: 2
Demo-ware: 2
Donationware: 5
Freeware: 5
Liteware: 5
Malware: 2
Nagware: 3
Orphanware/Abandonware: 2
Registerware: 5
Requestware: 5
Shareware: 2
Spyware: 3
Trialware: 3
Warez: 1

BillR

 

[Susan Bugher]

Latest results - 33 responses

Ad Beta CD Comm Cripp Demo Dona Free Lite

0 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
0 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
1 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 3
1 3 1 1 1 1 4 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 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 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 2 2 2 1 4 5 5
2 4 2 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 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 0 2 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 2 3 1 0 1 0
1 1 1 3 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 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 4 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 1
1 1 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 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
2 3 5 5 5 2 2 3 1
3 4 5 5 5 2 3 3 1
4 4 5 5 - 2 3 4 1
- 5 5 5 - 3 3 5 5

------------

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

-----------

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:

-----------

 

[D.G.]

.....................................................................x -----------

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: 3
Betaware: 4
CDWare: 4
Commercial Software: 1
Crippleware: 2
Demo-ware: 2
Donationware: 4
Freeware: 5
Liteware: 4
Malware: 1
Nagware: 2
Orphanware/Abandonware: 4
Registerware: 3
Requestware: 4
Shareware: 1
Spyware: 1
Trialware: 3
Warez: 1


Regards
D.G.

(e-mail address removed)