bazelman@wanginst.UUCP (Rudy Bazelmans) (08/01/85)
How many of you are writing software which you plan to give away but asking for donations? What are the range of donation requests and what are ranges of actual donations? What is the total amount each of you have received? Was it worth it? Please respond to me and I will summarize. Thanks Rudy -- Rudy Bazelmans - Wang Institute, (617) 967-2609 [apollo, bbncca, cadmus, decvax, harvard, linus, masscomp]!wanginst!bazelmans
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/04/85)
Andrew Flugelman, the originator of the entire "freeware" concept,
died last month.
Would it be a living epitath to him to henceforth call all freeware
"Flugelware"?
It might sound funny at first, but this guy *did* change the face
of computing.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<---------
I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson.
----
"I had a cat. She died. Had a goldfish. Died. Guppies. Died.
Gerbils. Died. Tippy. Died." - little girl
"Alright! So I don't like small animals!" - Mr. Deathwaynekn@tekig5.UUCP (Wayne Knapp) (08/05/85)
> Andrew Flugelman, the originator of the entire "freeware" concept, > died last month. > Would it be a living epitath to him to henceforth call all freeware > "Flugelware"? > It might sound funny at first, but this guy *did* change the face > of computing. That isn't funny, it's stupid. We are already hacking up English to a degree that Webster never dreamed possible! Lets try to keep the terms understandable. Anyway I admire your courage at posting such an idea, even though I think it's a terrible idea.
savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) (08/06/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MICRO, PLEASE *** > > Andrew Flugelman, the originator of the entire "freeware" concept, > > died last month. > > Would it be a living epitath to him to henceforth call all freeware > > "Flugelware"? > > It might sound funny at first, but this guy *did* change the face > > of computing. > > That isn't funny, it's stupid. We are already hacking up English to a > degree that Webster never dreamed possible! Lets try to keep the terms > understandable. Anyway I admire your courage at posting such an idea, > even though I think it's a terrible idea. I disagree, it's Webster and Shakespeare that hacked up the English language. I mean, Chaucer would hardly be able to understand our little words like articles, contractions and pronouns, let alone our technical terms, buzzwords, and compound words!!! (-: :-) "Whan that Aprill, withe his shures soote the drught of Marche hath persed to the roote, and bathed avery veine in swich liquor...." Canterbury Tales [Copied from faulty memory] Chaucer. There's more than one way to be savage Lowell Savage All opinions stated above are obviously those of all sentient beings, including my left shoe.
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/07/85)
In article <181@tekig5.UUCP> waynekn@tekig5.UUCP (Wayne Knapp) writes: (Responding to "Flugelware"): > >That isn't funny, it's stupid. We are already hacking up English to a >degree that Webster never dreamed possible! Lets try to keep the terms >understandable. Anyway I admire your courage at posting such an idea, >even though I think it's a terrible idea. Webster was a nice guy and all, but didn't he die a while ago. Probably before such words as "microwave", "microprocessor", and other new words were invented. Language is an evolving thing. Flugelman was the guy that made up the term "freeware". This has become a part of our living language. I think there might be room left in the language for one more word: a word that will cause this fellow to be remembered. Thanks for your admiration. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I had a cat. She died. Had a goldfish. Died. Guppies. Died. Gerbils. Died. Tippy. Died." - little girl "Alright! So I don't like small animals!" - Mr. Death
pmg@aplvax.UUCP (P. Michael Guba) (08/09/85)
|> Would it be a living epitath to Andrew Flugelman to henceforth |> call all freeware "Flugelware"? It might sound funny at first, |> but this guy *did* change the face of computing. In article <181@tekig5.UUCP> waynekn@tekig5.UUCP (Wayne Knapp) writes: | That isn't funny, it's stupid. We are already hacking up English to a | degree that Webster never dreamed possible! Lets try to keep the terms | understandable. Anyway I admire your courage at posting such an idea, | even though I think it's a terrible idea. A Watt is a Watt and a Volt is a Volt, why can't "Flugelware" be Flugelware. In history a lot of "things" have been given the names of the people behind them. Why doesn't this tradition apply any more? Thats my two cents, Mike -- P. Michael Guba ...seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg JHU/Applied Physics Lab ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Maryland 20707 (301) 953-6829 ---- End of Mesg ----
johnbl@tekig5.UUCP (John Blankenagel) (08/09/85)
> Andrew Flugelman, the originator of the entire "freeware" concept, > died last month. > > Would it be a living epitath to him to henceforth call all freeware > "Flugelware"? > > It might sound funny at first, but this guy *did* change the face > of computing. > > Tell you what: YOU call your programs Flugleware, and I'LL call mine freeware and let's see who makes the most money! John Blankenagel
savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) (08/12/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR FLUGELWARE *** >>> Would it be a living epitath to Andrew Flugelman to henceforth >>> call all freeware "Flugelware"? It might sound funny at first, >>> but this guy *did* change the face of computing. >> That isn't funny, it's stupid. We are already hacking up English to a >> degree that Webster never dreamed possible! Lets try to keep the terms >> understandable. Anyway I admire your courage at posting such an idea, >> even though I think it's a terrible idea. > > A Watt is a Watt and a Volt is a Volt, why can't "Flugelware" be > Flugelware. In history a lot of "things" have been given the names of the > people behind them. Why doesn't this tradition apply any more? I think that perhaps there is an even better reason for using "Flugelware". To the uninitiated (that's me before the first article on this topic came out) freeware would be public domain software or software for which no author can be established and thus completely without charge. Shareware seems to connote "I will share my x compiler with you in return for you sharing your y word- processing program with me". "Flugelware" doesn't have that sort of baggage carried with it. An uninitiated person might assume the meaning of "freeware" or "shareware" and look no further, whereas he/she will require and explanation of "flugelware". The explanation of "flugelware" is likely to be different from what they would have assumed of "freeware". Perhaps the concept that Andrew Flugelman came up with is as radically different from other methods of marketing software as the concept of power is from other measures involved with electricity and thus as deserving of the discoveror's/inventor's name as the watt. There's more than one way to be savage Lowell C. Savage
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/13/85)
> Language is an evolving thing. Flugelman was the guy that made up the > term "freeware". This has become a part of our living language. > > I think there might be room left in the language for one more word: > a word that will cause this fellow to be remembered. > It's this reasoning that keeps us measuring frequency in Hertz and conductivity in Siemenns. Next thing, we'll have to start calling the C compiler "Ritchie." -Ron Frequency is measured in cycles, not cubits, bushels, or yards. Hertz rents cars. If number one isn't enough, and number two tries hard enough, kilohertz would soon become kiloavis.
fbp@cybvax0.UUCP (Rick Peralta) (08/13/85)
In article <392@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >Language is an evolving thing. Flugelman was the guy that made up the >term "freeware". This has become a part of our living language. > >I think there might be room left in the language for one more word: >a word that will cause this fellow to be remembered. > Language is evolving, but to what ? Chinese is so complex and inconsistent that only masters can truly read and write. English, I hope, will not follow exactly in their foot steps. We are develpoing a versitile and colorfull language, but at what cost ? Personall I like the UN*X approach to life. Simple and orthagonal. If you wrote an OS how many copy commands would you have ? One, two, a dozen, more ? Some OSs go for the oodles approach to systems tools. It's easier to create many colorfull parts, but they are not easy to use. Look at throughput. It isn't even in many dictionaries, but it's meaning os clear to almost everyone (in copmuters). And how about leeward and leward. Try and explain the diffrances to someone. Most dictionaries don't even separate them! I don't know anything about Flugleman, but I would guesse he prefered simple understandable terms like "free-ware". Look up free and ware in the dictionary and you've got the new definition. It would be difficult to dig into the encyclopedias to find flugle and then summise that he had done to coin this word. Rick ...!cybvax0[!dmc0]!fbp "A likely story. I don't believe a word of it."
jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) (08/15/85)
I missed the first part of this discussion, too. How about "Tupperware"? ``I deny this is a disclaimer.''
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/16/85)
> We are develpoing a versitile and colorfull > language, but at what cost ? Personall I like the UN*X approach to life. > Simple and orthagonal. Its been done. Orwell invented just such a language, "newspeak", for the novel 1984. The idea, of course, was to disallow freedom of thought by making it impossible to express unorthodox thoughts. Just like UN*X--if they didn't think of it, you may have a hard time doing it. -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/16/85)
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
I make a simple suggestion, and it evolves into a discussion on semantics,
the history of language, the future of language, and whether or not calling
something Flugelware will have an impact on the history of humankind!
Sorry I asked.....
Sheesh!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<---------
I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson.
---johnny@alibaba.UUCP (Lars Svensson) (08/17/85)
In article <675@cybvax0.UUCP> fbp@cybvax0.UUCP (Rick Peralta) writes: > Personall I like the UN*X approach to life. >Simple and orthagonal. If you wrote an OS how many copy commands would you >have ? One, two, a dozen, more ? "The UN*X approach to life". To LIFE! This is the road to "double-plus-ungood", for sure. What's wrong with using BOTH terms? ....{decvax,seismo}!mcvax!enea!alibaba!johnny
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/19/85)
> Its been done. Orwell invented just such a language, "newspeak", for the > novel 1984. The idea, of course, was to disallow freedom of thought by > making it impossible to express unorthodox thoughts. Just like UN*X--if > they didn't think of it, you may have a hard time doing it. What planet are you from. Name me a real-world operating system in which it is easier to do things the author's never thought of. -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) (08/19/85)
In article <392@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >Language is an evolving thing. Flugelman was the guy that made up the >term "freeware". This has become a part of our living language. > Normally I would say "what is wrong with freeware*?", but as it turns out, "Freeware" is a trademark! The words "shareware" and "Flugelware" are not. How about "pleaware", because everytime you start one of these up you get a plea to send in money! Tom Almy
toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) (08/19/85)
In my submission about Freeware* being a trademark, I forgot to put in the footnote: * Freeware is a trademark of Andrew Fluegelman.
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/21/85)
In article <651@brl-tgr.ARPA> ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: > >It's this reasoning that keeps us measuring frequency in Hertz and >conductivity in Siemenns. Next thing, we'll have to start calling >the C compiler "Ritchie." > And I suppose you never heard of a "mho"? :-) Calling the C compiler Ritchie might have some problems: "Hi, dear. How was your day at the office?" "Hi, hon! Not too bad, except the damned Ritchie ended up not being portable. I sure wish it was a Flugelware product...." -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/21/85)
> I make a simple suggestion, and it evolves into a discussion on semantics, > the history of language, the future of language, and whether or not calling > something Flugelware will have an impact on the history of humankind! You mean you never noticed this tendency before? Do you really expect anything else from this particular collection of lunatics? -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) (08/22/85)
In article <651@brl-tgr.ARPA> ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: > >It's this reasoning that keeps us measuring frequency in Hertz and >conductivity in Siemenns. Next thing, we'll have to start calling >the C compiler "Ritchie." Well, we already have "Ada" "Pascal", and "JOVIAL". But why not: Ritchie C Grace COBOL (sounds nice to be programming in Grace!) Mc(arthy LISP Wirth Modula II Moore Forth Watson PL-I (named for the monolith's founder) ... (I appologise if I omitted your favorite co-author or language. Off hand I cannot remember the names of the authors of SNOBOL or BASIC, although I have seen their names in print recently recently.) Tom Almy Tektronix, Inc. Disclaimer: The above comments do not represent the opinions of any person or organization, living or dead.