jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) (10/08/85)
Previously there'd been some concern that net.sources.mac had become net.binhex.mac. This is certainly the case, but I would argue that it still performing a useful function. Recently, however, I've noticed that the net is becoming a distribution channel for profit-making software enterprises. That's right, I'm talking about SHAREWARE (aka freeware, though the software is neither shared nor free) I think it is commendable that some people will spend their time developing software that they have no intention of profitting from (macput, kermit, vt52.da). This spirit of cooperation -- particularly when source is included or available -- typifies the net at its best. In other cases (e.g., uw), the author may wish to reserve the right to a future version for profit, but has decided to make an early copy available for unlimited free use as long as no one tries to steal it. I think this benefits everyone, as well. However, it appears that net.sources.mac is now being filled with "shareware". Since I don't see Microsoft or Lotus using it for distribution, I must conclude that the software there is: * Not worth enough to support conventional distribution channels -- either in testing, documentation, or support; or * The author thinks he can get others to do his work for him for free. (lest someone think I exaggerate the magnitude of this, I've enclosed a typescript at the end that I encourage you to try) Shareware is useful, but I don't think various sites should pay their TelCo for someone else's marketting. I propose we either 1. Ban shareware from the net or 2. Confine it to specific newsgroups (mod.shareware) that sites may or may not carry. I would define shareware as anything that includes a statement "You {must, should, will be a slimeball unless you} send $X to someone...." This station welcomes replies by (un)qualified invididuals with opposing viewpoints.......... Joel West CACI, Inc. - Federal (c/o UC San Diego) {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@SDCSVAX.ARPA ---------------------TRY THIS ON YOUR LOCAL MACHINE--------------------- Script started on Mon Oct 7 14:35:40 1985 sdcsvax.% cd /usr/spool/news/net/sources/mac sdcsvax.% fgrep areware * 585:earlier. This is one of the best Shareware packages I have seen to date! 589:Subject: Space Flight Simulator, first version, shareware 589: The program is a "shareware" program - please send me the $15.00 591:# This software is shareware. Share it with others but do not sell it. 593:"Whitman's Desk Accessory sampler", by Kevin Hardman. It's shareware; the 599:is distibuted as shareware, see makedoc.hqx for details. Please post the 615:documents with success. It is written by John P. Powers and is Shareware 622:This is shareware, akin to Red Ryder. sdcsvax.% fgrep reeware * 616:demo version available for free, unlimited distribution. This freeware 623:Subject: Brickles--A Freeware Game 623:This is a freeware version of the breakout game. I got it from sdcsvax.% fgrep ' $' * 589: The program is a "shareware" program - please send me the $15.00 (noise omitted) 593:authur requests a $10 donation if you like & use it. (program fragment omitted) 598:good price, you should definitely check out Red Ryder 6.2; at $40 it's a sdcsvax.% cd /usr/spool/news/mod/newslists sdcsvax.% fgrep net.sources.mac * (noise deleted) 197: 5 385.9 34 12.06 4.2% 25.2% net.sources.mac (2.8) 200: net.sources.mac Software for the Apple MacIntosh sdcsvax.% cat 197 (header trimmed) Newsgroups: mod.newslists Subject: Top 25 News Groups for the last 2 weeks Date: 22 Sep 85 12:15:22 GMT No. of $ Cost % of Cumulative Rank Kbytes Articles per Site Total % of Total Group (Articles/contributor) 1 583.7 93 18.24 6.3% 6.3% net.sources (1.8) 2 496.2 285 15.51 5.4% 11.7% net.sf-lovers (3.2) 3 455.9 267 14.25 4.9% 16.6% net.politics (2.6) 4 401.1 175 12.54 4.3% 21.0% net.religion (4.2) 5 385.9 34 12.06 4.2% 25.2% net.sources.mac (2.8) (17 lines deleted) 23 146.2 116 4.57 1.6% 67.1% net.micro.mac (1.6) $ Cost is the cost of sending it over a 1200 baud, long distance, phone link presuming $0.15 per minute and 800 baud effective throughput. sdcsvax.% exit script done on Mon Oct 7 14:45:06 1985
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (10/15/85)
In article <1134@sdcsvax.UUCP> jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) writes: >Recently, however, I've noticed that the net is becoming a distribution >channel for profit-making software enterprises. That's right, I'm talking >about > SHAREWARE > (aka freeware, though the software is neither shared nor free) > >Shareware is useful, but I don't think various sites should pay >their TelCo for someone else's marketting. I propose we either > 1. Ban shareware from the net or > 2. Confine it to specific newsgroups (mod.shareware) > that sites may or may not carry. > >I would define shareware as anything that includes a statement > "You {must, should, will be a slimeball unless you} send > $X to someone...." How about a modified contribution rule? If you like a "shareware" product, send the author the suggested amount of money MINUS the estimated telephone costs for shipping that software between the originating site and your site. Then donate that money to your local USENET site - they don't deserve all of it, but the authors certainly don't deserve it either. Or, take your local USENET administrator out for dinner - he or she has done a lot of work, probably for free, that you've benefitted from. I think it's rather illegitimate to make a profit on such software while forcing other people to pay the phone bills for distributing it. Dave Martindale
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (10/15/85)
[Somebody debug this hum...] From: jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West), Message-ID: <1134@sdcsvax.UUCP>: >However, it appears that net.sources.mac is now being filled with >"shareware". Since I don't see Microsoft or Lotus using it for >distribution, I must conclude that the software there is: > * Not worth enough to support conventional distribution > channels -- either in testing, documentation, or support; or > * The author thinks he can get others to do his work for him > for free. Shareware is there so programmers can get a little something for their efforts without having to turn themselves into d*mned corporations like Microsoft or Lotus. Shareware has two delightful properties that make it worth *more* than "conventionally distributed" software: 1) it allows you to test in your own home on your own applications before you purchase; and 2) it's Cheap, precisely *because* the authors haven't turned into corporations. >Shareware is useful, but I don't think various sites should pay >their TelCo for someone else's marketting. I propose we either > 1. Ban shareware from the net or > 2. Confine it to specific newsgroups (mod.shareware) > that sites may or may not carry. Posting shareware to the net benefits us all just as much as posting public domain final or pre- release software: it allows easy, rapid access for people who otherwise might not get a chance to try stuff. Sites who carry net.sources.mac have already generously agreed to allow this access to their users. The fact that some programmer gets a few bucks in the mail every now and then does not diminish the benefit to a site's users, and hence is completely irrelevant. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief? Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like the old Indian chief?" (The Roches)
che@ptsfb.UUCP (Mitch Che ) (10/16/85)
In article <1134@sdcsvax.UUCP> jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) writes: > >Recently, however, I've noticed that the net is becoming a distribution >channel for profit-making software enterprises. That's right, I'm talking >about > SHAREWARE > (aka freeware, though the software is neither shared nor free) > >I think it is commendable that some people will spend their time developing >software that they have no intention of profitting from (macput, kermit, >vt52.da). This spirit of cooperation -- particularly when source is >included or available -- typifies the net at its best. >....... >However, it appears that net.sources.mac is now being filled with >"shareware". Since I don't see Microsoft or Lotus using it for >distribution, I must conclude that the software there is: > * Not worth enough to support conventional distribution > channels -- either in testing, documentation, or support; or > * The author thinks he can get others to do his work for him > for free. > One of the first communications programs I used on an IBM PC was a "freeware" program (by the late Andrew Flugelman) called PCTALK III. This was in 1982. I gladly sent him $35.00 because most of the commercial communications programs at that time were extremely expensive and crap (pardon the expression). I was glad to see "shareware" in 1982 and still like the idea. If YOU don't like "shareware", fine, don't download it and don't send anything to the authors. Your logic in the last paragraph above escapes me. Free software is (potentially) great, "shareware" is "not worth enough to support...". I think there are good programs of both types on the net, and personally, I want to continue seeing them. If the author wants to ask me to send him/her something IF I USE THE PROGRAM, fine. There's no free lunch, Joel. (Geez, I hope this doesn't open up a discussion about altruism [and support of Mom, apple pie and the American Way?] on the part of programmers.) -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell --------------------------------------- disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer, too (415) 823-2438 uucp: {ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!ptsfb!che
shebanow@ucbernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Shebanow) (10/16/85)
[ Beware of the line eater... Why is this bug still around? ] Recently, Joel West (jww@sdscvax) published a letter in which he criticized the proliferation of freeware in net.sources.mac. To quote: > However, it appears that net.sources.mac is now being filled with > "shareware". Since I don't see Microsoft or Lotus using it for > distribution, I must conclude that the software there is: > * Not worth enough to support conventional distribution > channels -- either in testing, documentation, or support; or > * The author thinks he can get others to do his work for him > for free. > > (lest someone think I exaggerate the magnitude of this, I've > enclosed a typescript at the end that I encourage you to try) > > Shareware is useful, but I don't think various sites should pay > their TelCo for someone else's marketing. I propose we either > 1. Ban shareware from the net or > 2. Confine it to specific newsgroups (mod.shareware) > that sites may or may not carry. As a developer who has posted shareware to net.sources.mac, I feel compelled to argue his extremely negative assessment of shareware. First of all, it is not reasonable to divide all software into two camps: public domain and commercial. Shareware came into existence because developers felt a need to profit from their labor while avoiding the nastier aspects of licensing software to a publisher (like dealing with the all-too-common royalty audit). It would be great if we could just give our software away, but I for one can not afford to spend several hundred hours on a program I am going to give away. And it should be pointed out that shareware is not exactly the fast track to massive profit: for every copy of a program that is registered, hundreds (if not thousands) of unregistered copies are used by the unscrupulous and the lazy. (Yes, you should feel guilty). I will consider myself very, very lucky if I break even on my program. In fact, in spite of my attraction to the freeware concept, I doubt that I will release another shareware product. The number of responses has been an order of magnitude too small. Shareware is not simply a way for developers to avoid the normal obligations associated with publishing software. Shareware actually provides many benefits for both the developer and the user. For the developer, shareware has these advantages: 1) Shareware allows small independent software developers to have their products get wide distribution without having to give magazines large quantities of money for small and marginally effective ads. 2) Shareware gives developers a way to distribute useful products intended for small markets for a profit (although not a very big one). Many software packages are refused by publishers because they are unlikely to be stocked in a retail outlet due to their limited marketplace. 3) Shareware provides a way for a small developer to achieve recognition for its later products, and a 'track history' in the software market. For the user, shareware has these advantages: 1) It allows users to try a product for an extensive period of time without any signifigant cost. 2) It avoids the 'rip-off' feeling that people get when they find out that the product in the fancy box with the glossy but uninformative demo program turns out to be useless. Distributing a product as shareware does not imply a lack of support, documentation or testing. I can only speak from personal experience, but I guarantee that people who send me money for my program (a Make utility) will receive far better support from me than they will from MicroSoft for their copy of Word (have you ever tried to call MicroSoft? I have been kept on hold by them for more than 30 minutes!). While my documentation may not be spiral-bound, it should provide all the information that is necessary to use the program. And I and several friends used the product for quite some time before it was placed on the net. Now for a disclaimer: like commercial software, shareware is often of very poor quality. Most of the shareware distributed is not very interesting, but I believe it would be foolish to ban all freeware from the net because some of it is poorly done. Look at the programs which have been distributed as shareware (FEdit, Red Ryder, and the Mock series of desk accessories for the Mac, and PCWrite & PCTalk, for the IBM PC). I hope that I have given enough reason for net.sources.mac to remain a safe harbor for shareware. If worse comes to worse, I think that having a seperate net.shareware.mac (or some such) would be tolerable. I think that banning shareware from the net would be a tragedy. In any event, the whole discussion may soon be a moot point. Shareware may be extinct soon, and I think that that will be the real tragedy. If you use a shareware program more than once every two monthes or so, send in your registration fees. You will be doing a service to the user community. Andrew G. Shebanow HyperSoft
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (10/16/85)
Before this gets too heated, I'd just like to say I like the shareware software posted on the net, and don't mind them posted without sources. Why? Because I enjoy having access to these programs as a user; I don't use my Mac for programming, only for home use. That's it. "Simple, candid, crazed and madcap (quintessentially retarded) our hero fights an with a PLUCK and SPIRIT that is totally American to the core!!" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (10/16/85)
Joel Grey is objecting to the posting of "shareware" on the net. He goes on to assert various things about it probably not being good enough to be sold commercially, which indicate a serious lack of understanding of the realities of micro software avail- ability, and objects to developers being allowed to market their stuff thru the net. (1) A lot of shareware is good. Many items would be almost unmarketable thru conventional software channels (I couldn't find Microsoft Basic for the Mac in this town for MONTHS, dammit. As for developer's utilities, forget it: If it ain't a spreadsheet, they don't stock it....) I find it very useful that things like FEdit come over the net. (2) Most of them are NOT being posted by the developers; rather they are posted by users who liked the stuff and want to share it. Shareware is far more useful to most sites than net.politics, jokes, bizarre, net.jobs (think about it: does your employer really want to pay to provide you with a service that will help you leave and work for someone else....). Shareware actually has some relation to computers: almost all of us are in computer-related work. Few of us are paid to be funny, or job-hunters, or soap-boxing. DON'T CUT OUT THE MOST USEFUL GROUP ON THE WHOLE NET!!! (ok, most useful to me... but there are a LOT of Mac hackers on the net -- that's why net.micro.mac and sources.mac are such full directories.) Thank you. -- "The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed" -- Racter Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
john@basser.oz (John Mackin) (10/17/85)
In article <10674@ucbvax.ARPA> shebanow@ucbernie.UUCP (Mike Shebanow) writes: > I believe it would be foolish to ban all freeware from the net because > some of it is poorly done. > I hope that I have given enough reason for net.sources.mac to remain a > safe harbor for shareware. Well, Mike, you certainly HAVE NOT! Your article was very long, but nowhere in it did you address Joel West's main objection, which you even quoted: >> Shareware is useful, but I don't think various sites should pay >> their TelCo for someone else's marketing. The point is, you are getting the rest of USENET to pay for the distribution of this software. It's just not on. USENET is supposed to be non-commercial. John Mackin, Basser Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia seismo!munnari!basser.oz!john john%basser.oz@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) (10/17/85)
Time to be a wet blanket. I don't care whether any specific shareware is good or not. I don't care if it's a wonderful concept. Use of the USENET for distribution of shareware constitutes `use of the network for personal gain' which is roundly frowned upon, and if it *ever* hits the ARPA Internet, could get us cut off from that very vital and useful community of people, because they have an explicit prohibition on use of their network for personal gain. I'm not exactly sure, but I think it's a federal crime. I personally don't read the groups in question, and to my knowledge, they do not get gatewayed into the ARPA Internet. However, if I hear anything to the contrary, I will cut off said groups from the ARPA Internet, because I will not subject myself or this institution to possibility of loss of our ARPA Internet connection and/or prosecution. keeper of the network news for ucbvax, and guardian of the gateway, Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (10/18/85)
In article <10687@ucbvax.ARPA> fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) writes: > Use of the USENET for distribution of shareware constitutes `use of > the network for personal gain'.... Perhaps we have different definitions of shareware. I see `shareware' as meaning the same thing as `freeware'. If that is so then your statement is not true. If not, then I agree. By the way, you need to fix your gecos-field expansion. (Maybe this should be put into `mkpasswd' in 4.3, so that programs need not worry about ampersands anymore.) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (10/18/85)
In article <1134@sdcsvax.UUCP> jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) writes: >Shareware is useful, but I don't think various sites should pay >their TelCo for someone else's marketting. Similar comments from Erik Fair (fair@ucbvax) about people using ARPANET to make a profit. I ran something similar to Joel's script and indeed found quite a few "shareware" programs in net.sources.mac, roughly 10% of the articles. On the other hand, all but two of those were *not* posted by the author of the program. The poster had gotten them from some other sources, and then posted them. What had apparently happened was that people had found what they considered a good thing, and were passing it on to the net. I thought that that was what net.sources was for: sharing useful programs with others on the net. In other words, I don't see what Joel's complaint is. Erik, on the other hand, notes that distributing such things on the ARPANET could violate the agreement between DARPA and the various sites on the ARPANET. This could well be true, and needs serious consideration. Not being familiar those agreements, I can't comment on how shareware should be viewed (I suspect that it's probably a matter of interpretation). Not being familiar with the mechanism that gates net.sources to ARPANET, I can't propose any kind of a solution. In summary, I claim that distributing shareware is a valid use of USENET. Interaction with ARPANET is unknown, needs to be discussed, and may call for some restriction on that use. Could someone please describe the agreements in question, and the net.sources -> ARPANET gateway? Thanx, <mike
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (10/18/85)
[This line intentionally left blank] From: fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &), Message-ID: <10687@ucbvax.ARPA>: >Use of the USENET for distribution of shareware constitutes `use of the >network for personal gain' >[...] > Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU Either a shareware program is posted by the author or it's posted by someone else. If it's posted by the author then it's not for personal gain, it's for professional gain. Open position postings to net.jobs are for professional gain, and many sites are willing to allow that, even though they have much more to lose. And if shareware is posted by anyone but the author, then there's no gain whatsoever to anyone but the readers of the newsgroup. What is this whining about? Why do sites carry net.sources.* if not to provide their users with access to programs that they might not other- wise have access to? So what if a programmer gets a few bucks in the mail every now and then? That has absolutely nothing to do with providing access for users. Sites have *not a thing* more to lose by providing shareware than they do by providing public domain programs. And users have a lot to gain. Which is the point of the net in the first place. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief? Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like the old Indian chief?" (The Roches)
dws@tolerant.UUCP (Dave W. Smith) (10/18/85)
In article <1192@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP, (Beth Christy) writes: >Sites who carry net.sources.mac have already generously agreed to allow >this access to their users. Let's not kid ourselves. The folks paying the bills at most of the sites probably have no idea that net.sources.mac exists. The "generous agreement" is that as long as the phone bill isn't too bad, and the level of technical information coming in remains good, and we/they don't see too many people burning up too much time reading news, the game goes on. We get a lot of technical benefit from usenet, which was our justification for getting on in the first place, but I fear that the dreaded "day of reckoning" is fast approaching, and staving it off will require that we be better about policing ourselves. That means keeping traffic reasonable. In the specific case of net.sources.mac, I don't feel that shareware is the problem, or that banning it does that much good. However, the number of duplicate, or nearly duplicate, postings in net.sources.mac is pretty high, as are "the copy of X we received was mangled, could somebody please repost it to the entire planet because we're too lazy to check with our upstream sites first" requests. The amount of non- or partially-debugged code that gets posted is also disappointing. I would like to see a mod.sources.mac, but don't have the time or the energy to volunteer (maybe some poor grad student is looing for an excuse to delay a thesis?). In the mean time, there are a couple of things that we can do to keep things under control. Beyond the obvious, (like not including an entire BinHex file in a reply), we can make sure that our code is debugged before we post it. Before posting a file that we just uploaded, we can download and run it to make sure that the copy we're about to post is good. We can check with local sites (or have our SA do so) to see if anyone has a good copy of a file that got mangled, rather than posting a request to the entire world. We can repeat to ourselves daily, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". -- David W. Smith {nsc,ucbvax}!tolerant!dws Tolerant Systems, Inc. 408/946-5667 [Standard Disclaimer]
mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz) (10/18/85)
Let's keep things straight here. It's irrelevant whether shareware in general or a given program in particular is of professional quality. What is relevant is the fact that shareware authors (or their friends & admirers) are using this net to publish software on which they are making (or at least hope to make) a profit. No other profit making venture that I know of can use a distribution channel at no cost to itself. I am having a hard enough time justifying the volume of stuff from net.micro.mac, which is running at 1.2Mbytes for the first 1/2 of this month *alone*, without having to explain why we're giving a free ride to the creations of entrepreneurs. -- Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl CSNET: mjl%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/20/85)
Let's not jump to conclusions about the ARPA policy on shareware distribution. If this is so clear cut, why are all those shareware programs still in SUMEX's INFO-MAC FTP archives? -=- Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys.
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (10/20/85)
] > Use of the USENET for distribution of shareware constitutes `use of ] > the network for personal gain'.... ] ] Perhaps we have different definitions of shareware. I see `shareware' ] as meaning the same thing as `freeware'. If that is so then your statement ] is not true. If not, then I agree. I think that 'shareware' and 'freeware' denote the same thing: programs which may be copied around quite freely, but which are NOT 'free': if you use one of these programs for more than a brief evaluation period, you must send money to the author of the program. There's no real way to enforce this, which is one of the reasons why some shareware promises benefits for its registered users. If you write a shareware program and post it to the net, you are using USENET for personal gain -- obviously you expect that at least some people will send you money, because otherwise you could simply have put a 'copyrighted but can be freely copied around for personal, noncommercial use' notice on it. (Side note: this is NOT the same thing as 'public domain'; there's nothing to stop anyone from taking a public domain program that you have written and selling it for quite a bit of $$$, without even paying you two cents.) Similarly, if you post your registered copy of a shareware program promising that 'for every registration of a copy that has your serial number on it, you will be given $X', you are using USENET for personal gain. (This particular marketing technique seems to be designed with the purpose of getting people to post shareware on every system that they can access.) Posting shareware which won't benefit you financially if people send in money should be OK from the 'using USENET for personal gain' perspective. Of course, this pretty much means reposts of programs that have appeared elsewhere first. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@spice.cs.cmu.edu
korn@ucbcory.BERKELEY.EDU (Peter "Arrgh" Korn) (10/21/85)
Another useful thing we (collective, not royal) could do is test every binhexed file by downloading it before posting. A number of binhexed files get mangled not by the USENET, but in the process of posting. And of course, if that's the case, it has to be posted all over again... --- --- /~^~\ /^^ || || --- Peter Korn |* *|----------\ /- ----- -/ = \ korn%ucbcory@Berkeley.LotsONets | | | | | | | | !ucbvax!ucbcory!korn ( = )_ ____ _/ \___________|\ /| \_/ || || ^^/ \___/ --- --- None of the above opinions/ideas/expressions/mannerisms/etc. are those of whoever I might supposedly be representing (except possibly myself, of course, and even then there's some room for doubt).
guido@boring.UUCP (10/21/85)
The conclusion seems to be that if you pick up shareware from USENET and use it without paying the money it asks for, you don't have to feel guilty. And let's stop this discussion. Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam (guido@mcvax.UUCP)
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) (10/21/85)
> What is this whining about? Why do sites carry net.sources.* if not to > provide their users with access to programs that they might not other- > wise have access to? So what if a programmer gets a few bucks in the > mail every now and then? This reminds me of an old, old joke, which although possibly offensive to some, is very relevant here. A man goes up to a woman on the beach and asks, "Would you sleep with me for $10,000?" "Sure," she replies. "What about for $10?" he asks. "What kind of woman do you think I am!!!" she answers, indignant. "Madam, we've already established what you are. Now we're trying to establish your price," he concludes. The point being, "a few bucks in the mail" means commercial, by the definitions customarily used on Usenet. And thus, forbidden. Joel West CACI, Inc. - Federal (c/o UC San Diego) {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@SDCSVAX.ARPA PS: The issue of net.jobs, although sticky, is not the same. Except for placement agencies, posters of openings do not make a buck when a job is filled. And I'm sure most companies would pay the phone call to see the resume of a prospective new hire.
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/21/85)
In article <1564@uwmacc.UUCP> rick@maccunix.UUCP (Rick Keir) writes: >Joel Grey is objecting to the posting of "shareware" on the net. >He goes on to assert various things about it probably not being >good enough to be sold commercially, which indicate a serious >lack of understanding of the realities of micro software avail- >ability, and objects to developers being allowed to market their >stuff thru the net. I think you'll find that most of the shareware stuff is definitely posted by third parties. A good percentage of it comes OFF of ARPA and the info-mac archive, so I'm not at all sure that the ARPA problem is a real one -- ARPA is already passing around and archiving that stuff in an arganized form. I don't see any problem, really -- that stuff is nothing more than a public domoain program with a "I you like this, please let me know..." addition. If the people who use it like it, they pay for it. If not, they don't. In either setup there are no additional costs to the site except transfer, and the reality is that a good percentage of that stuff wouldn't exist, much to the dismay of the interested parties (of which I'm one...). One point: Assuming you 'outlaw' shareware, how do you plan on enforcing it? Rules and regulations are fine, but there has to be a way of dealing with the people who don't know the rule or won't pay attention to it. I think that an arbitrary rule of this sort will simply create more problems than it solves... Other point: I haven't annouced this previously, but I've worked out a deal (thanks a LOT to apple!lsr) with Apple so that stuff that is uploaded to CompuServe will also be sent to me to be uploaded for posting to the net and shipment to the info-mac archives. There are still some minor details to be worked out, but it is my feeling that if 'shareware' is outlawed it would also apply to this, and we'll be cutting the many Mac users and developers out there from some very important and USEFUL resources and information. I don't know about you, but as long as the volume in places like net.flame and net.religion stays as high as it is, I don't see why we're bothering with groups like net.*.mac where the noise leve is relatively low... -- :From the Crystal Caves of Avalon: Chuq Von Rospach sun!chuq@decwrl.ARPA {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq Our time is past -- it is a time for men, not of magic.
bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) (10/21/85)
In article <10674@ucbvax.ARPA> shebanow@ucbernie.UUCP (Mike Shebanow) writes: >As a developer who has posted shareware to net.sources.mac, I feel >compelled to argue his extremely negative assessment of shareware. > >First of all, it is not reasonable to divide all software into two camps: >public domain and commercial. Shareware came into existence because >developers felt a need to profit from their labor while avoiding the >nastier aspects of licensing software to a publisher (like dealing with >the all-too-common royalty audit). It would be great if we could just give >our software away, but I for one can not afford to spend several hundred >hours on a program I am going to give away. On the other hand, some people's priorities don't put so much importance on money. If I were to ever market a program as "Shareware", any money that came in would be a pleasant surprise. How many hundreds of hours do you think has been spent on the various file transfer (XMODEM/MODEM7) programs in the CP/M arena? How many hundreds (thousands?) of hours do you think have been spent on the Usenet news software? How many hundreds of hours have been spent on all the public domain software posted to net.sources in the history of the net? I've always thought it might be nice to be rich, but there are other things that are a *LOT* more important to me. As far as the disaster of net.sources.* is concerned, I've always supported getting rid of net.sources in favor of mod.sources. In support of this, I'd be willing to volunteer to moderate mod.sources.mac. -- roger long filenet corp trwrb!felix!bytebug
guest@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) (10/22/85)
> Previously there'd been some concern that net.sources.mac had > become net.binhex.mac. This is certainly the case, but I would > argue that it still performing a useful function. > > Recently, however, I've noticed that the net is becoming a distribution > channel for profit-making software enterprises. That's right, I'm talking > about > SHAREWARE > (aka freeware, though the software is neither shared nor free) > > However, it appears that net.sources.mac is now being filled with > "shareware". Since I don't see Microsoft or Lotus using it for > distribution, I must conclude that the software there is: > * Not worth enough to support conventional distribution > channels -- either in testing, documentation, or support; or > * The author thinks he can get others to do his work for him > for free. * The author chooses not to spend the necessary megabucks in advertising required to get interest from dealers. > Shareware is useful, but I don't think various sites should pay > their TelCo for someone else's marketting. I propose we either > 1. Ban shareware from the net or > 2. Confine it to specific newsgroups (mod.shareware) > that sites may or may not carry. There are a number of reasons why an individual may choose to distribute through shareware channels other than the quality of the software. Indeed there are quite a few good "Share-ware" programs, but shareware should not be placed in the same distribution channels as Free-ware. This is one vote for option 2, give shareware a separate newsgroup. Another request would be to separate "binary" (binhex, uuencode,...) from source newsgroups. Manuals and documentation should go in sources if the source is posted, otherwise, put it in a "binary" group.
royt@gatech.CSNET (Roy M Turner) (10/22/85)
Okay, there are good points on both sides of the issue, I suppose...I enjoy seeing the shareware that comes past, and trying it out before deciding to keep it or erase it, something that can't usually be done with regular commercial software...if the author puts the stuff on the net, I suppose you folks who are complaining about it being a commercial issue are justified; if someone else posts it, though, I see no difference ethically between that and recommending a commercial product--there is no gain for the poster at all. Now, while we are on the subject, many of you have said things to the effect that you don't know of any other newsgroups that are getting away with this sort of stuff, ie, people making a profit. How about the various and sundry .forsale and .jobs groups? Selling something outright is not making a profit?? Granted it's not "really" a profit, since most things on there are for old cars, stereos, compters, etc., but how about the condos? You don't think real estate is for profit? Or is that all right, but posting software with a dim hope of getting some money for it isn't? Just thought I'd bring it up...go ahead, flame me--I don't get enought mail anyways! :-) Roy PS--I don't post to either net.sources.mac or the .forsale groups, so the only vested interest I have in the matter is acquiring decent software for my mac...
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/23/85)
> [Chuq Von Rospach] > Other point: I haven't annouced this previously, but I've worked out a deal > (thanks a LOT to apple!lsr) with Apple so that stuff that is uploaded to > CompuServe will also be sent to me to be uploaded for posting to the net > and shipment to the info-mac archives. I would certainly like to add to this my own expression of appreciation to Larry. And also to you, Chuq, for your efforts in this regard. Thank you both. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "The voice of the Lord is full of majesty." | Psalm 29:4
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/23/85)
In article <536@felix.UUCP> bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) writes: >As far as the disaster of net.sources.* is concerned, I've always supported >getting rid of net.sources in favor of mod.sources. In support of this, I'd >be willing to volunteer to moderate mod.sources.mac. When the discussion about whether to create net.sources.mac or mod.sources.mac was going on, I pushed rather hard for the moderated group (and offered to be the moderator). The response from the net at that time (about 9 months ago?) was almost unanimously negative. Perhaps its time to reexamine the idea -- I, for one, think that mod.sources.mac would be a wonderful idea... Go for it, Roger... chuq -- :From the Crystal Caves of Avalon: Chuq Von Rospach sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq Our time is past -- it is a time for men, not of magic.
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (10/24/85)
[This line intentionally left blank] From: mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz), Message-ID: <8965@ritcv.UUCP>: >Let's keep things straight here. It's irrelevant whether shareware in >general or a given program in particular is of professional quality. So far, so good. >What is relevant is the fact that shareware authors (or their friends & >admirers) are using this net to publish software on which they are >making (or at least hope to make) a profit. No other profit making >venture that I know of can use a distribution channel at no cost to >itself. I am having a hard enough time justifying the volume of stuff >from net.micro.mac, which is running at 1.2Mbytes for the first 1/2 of >this month *alone*, without having to explain why we're giving a free >ride to the creations of entrepreneurs. Well, how do you justify providing net.sources.* at all? Why do you subscribe to it? Isn't it because you have users who Want access to the programs that get posted to it? These are NOT rhetorical questions - I really want an answer. Your major complaint seems to be that someone's getting something for free from net.sources. But we're ALL getting something for free from net.sources. When I download a public domain program I get something for free, namely a program to use or not as I see fit. When I download a shareware program I also get something for free, namely a chance to demo a program in the privacy of my own home on my own real data/applications. No money changes hands, nothing has been sold. In both cases I, as a reader of net.sources, have gotten a program to use or not as I see fit for free. If I use the shareware, I will send money to the author (not necessarily the poster) as a matter of courtesy. But the small amount of gain the author gets in no way diminishes the benefit to me as a reader of the net. And if your answers to the questions in the previous para- graph are what I expect, the benefit to readers is the whole point of subscribing to the newsgroup. You can talk about the agreements regarding the use of the net for commercial purposes, and we can argue about whether or not providing free demos of programs (note again that no money necessarily changes hands) is in fact a commercial use. But maybe we should question instead whether or not providing shareware to readers is in conflict with the real point of Usenet. I don't think it is. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief? Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like the old Indian chief?" (The Roches)
morse@leadsv.UUCP (Terry Morse) (10/25/85)
I think it's about time to think about mod.sources.mac. This could be for the latest versions of general purpose source code, such as: macput/macget/xbin MacKermit Freeterm (etc) Since these are constantly being requested by new users, they could be posted by the moderator periodically. He or she could make sure that the latest versions are posted. I am still in favor of keeping net.sources.mac for those unique or new programs that are not of general interest, but mod.sources.mac could be a user's source for proven software. (It's been getting hard to tell which version of xbin, etc. is the latest or best). -- Terry Morse (408)743-1487 { seismo!nsc!cae780 } | { sun!sunncal } !leadsv!morse
rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (10/27/85)
Here is one strong vote to keep mac.sources. Until I see other groups like net.religion,politics,abortion going into the can I see the "cleanup" of mac sources as just another tempest in a teapot. I use the group for my WORK which, among other things, involves looking into the possibility of using macs as inexpensive graphics terminals etc. Finding the MacWrite to troff converter and the MacPaint to imagen software on the group has been helpful to my WORK. I emphasize the WORK because that is what this network is supposed to be used for: the dissemination of information for the purpose of increasing one's eff- ectiveness at WORK. If there is a legal problem with "shareware" then find out about it and act accordingly. If there is no real problem, then leave the shareware alone. I have found a few gems come through that more than justify the existence of the group. Software, by the way, that I use in my WORK. If there is a real legal problem with shareware someone is going to have to ex- plain the existance of a lot of it at sumex-aim where I go to the trough to get a lot of software that I either miss on the net or need to re-acquire. A hearty thanks to those at sumex-aim. I have a feeling that this problem is vapor-worry but whoever is responsible for taking care of these things should probably find out for sure. When I see the volume of traffic that goes through a lot of groups that I would have to call "entertainment" I have to strongly protest ANY attempt to limit mac.sources in any way until it can be shown that there are no other alternatives. This is a useful, productive and legitimate group and will remain so certainly as long as there people on the net investi- gating the use of the Macintosh in the work place. -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (10/29/85)
Postings suggesting and/or discussing the replacement of net.sources.mac by mod.sources.macintosh (my suggestion for the name) should go on in net.news.group. I have added that group to the "Newsgroups" line of this article, and followups will also go there. I have set the "Followups" line so that discussion *only* goes on in net.news and net.news.group. Anyone reading net.sources.mac who has an opinion on this matter should subscribe to net.news.group. -- Gene "sometime in 1986" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (10/31/85)
People, watch out. The fact that Spafford already has a suggestion for the name of a moderated group to replace net.sources.mac probably means that he has plans to replace it unless we speak up in net.news.group NOW. Remember, net.bizarre was deleted without even this much warning. You might also want to keep an eye on net.news, considering some of the recent posts there . . . -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@spice.cs.cmu.arpa
gus@Shasta.ARPA (10/31/85)
> Postings suggesting and/or discussing the replacement of net.sources.mac > by mod.sources.macintosh (my suggestion for the name) should go on in > net.news.group. I have added that group to the "Newsgroups" line of > this article, and followups will also go there. > > I have set the "Followups" line so that discussion *only* goes on in > net.news and net.news.group. Anyone reading net.sources.mac who has > an opinion on this matter should subscribe to net.news.group. KEEP NET.SOURCES.MAC!!!!!!!!!!! N.S.M is a goldmine of software for the Macintosh and I don't want to see anything to lessen its usefulness.
mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy) (11/01/85)
In article <1236@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) writes: > > >Well, how do you justify providing net.sources.* at all? Why do you >subscribe to it? Isn't it because you have users who Want access to the >programs that get posted to it? These are NOT rhetorical questions - I >really want an answer. > >Your major complaint seems to be that someone's getting something for >free from net.sources. Beth, I don't think you went far enough. The fact is we all derive a great deal of benifit from the nets. Besides using net.sources.mac, I use them to get information that is CRITICAL in the product development decision making cycle that I could not get easily any other way. If we start throwing rocks at shareware on the net, we'd better be prepared to take a look at the whole net concept. We are all receiving a rather big free-bee here. I think a great deal of the complaining is because this high level of share and free ware is not directly used by the those who are bitching the loudest. Still, it it obvious by the net discussions that it sure as hell is important to a large number of users. We could run a little experiment. Let's have a few brave souls kill the mac nets on their machines and see how long it takes before some torqued off user pours a can of coke (classic, of course) on their keyboards. Big Mac 317-497-0509 "One man's share ware is another man's random number"
maddog@tolerant.UUCP (Bill Arnett) (11/01/85)
In article <1482@Shasta.ARPA> gus@Shasta.ARPA writes: > >KEEP NET.SOURCES.MAC!!!!!!!!!!! > >N.S.M is a goldmine of software for the Macintosh and I don't want to see >anything to lessen its usefulness. RIGHT ON! -- Bill Arnett {ucbvax,nsc}!tolerant!maddog Tolerant Systems, Inc. San Jose 408/946-5667
somner@lasspvax.UUCP (David Somner) (11/05/85)
In article <195@tolerant.UUCP> maddog@handel.UUCP (Bill Arnett) writes: >In article <1482@Shasta.ARPA> gus@Shasta.ARPA writes: >> >>KEEP NET.SOURCES.MAC!!!!!!!!!!! >> >>N.S.M is a goldmine of software for the Macintosh and I don't want to see >>anything to lessen its usefulness. > >RIGHT ON! Hear hear! Let's keep this group going!!!!! On this end of the world, (Cornell) everyone uses Macs highly. I believe that about a good 70% of all people on campus use one, and about 60% have Macs themselves after using it for about a month or so. This is a VERY active site for Mac stuff.
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (11/07/85)
> Postings suggesting and/or discussing the replacement of net.sources.mac > by mod.sources.macintosh (my suggestion for the name) should go on in > net.news.group. I would like to register one vote (if there can be such a thing in an anarchic net :-) ) for keeping net.sources.mac. My reasons: 1. There is a resonable amount of software useful to me and others at work. I also use some at home, but that does not negate my usage at work. 2. I don't think making the group a moderated one would decrease the volume all that much. The volume is high both because of interest and because of the type of posting-- usually text files which can be decrypted to produce a Mac-executable application. These tend to be large. Making the group moderated won't affect interest Unless the moderator is willing to do an enormous amount of work, announcements that something is available will not tell me enough about the software to know whether I want it or not. So I'll ask for it, and so will others. The moderator will see a lot of requests and post it. No net decrease in postings. Of course, there is the objection that such posts are not source code. While there has been source code posted to the group (and it is instructive if not actually useful), transportability and frequent lack of the actual source make an encoded executable the most practicle thing to post in many cases. Keep in mind this group is for a one-lung micro, not a good-sized mini. 3. I don't buy the shareware concern. I've never seen a posting or a shareware program that said, in effect, "If I don't make money from this I'll never make something shareware again!". I don't think shareware is intended to make money for the author, but is intended to (a) defray part of the cost involved and/or (b) guage acceptance of the program by counting how many people pay for it. And, as has been pointed out, many (if not most) of the posts to sources.mac are items gotten from CompuServe or some other network/bulletin board, and passed on to USENET readers in the true spirit of free- or share-ware (unlimited distribution to potential users). These posters have nothing at all to gain by passing these items on to the rest of us, and to deny all of us this method of sharing would be a great loss. Well, for what it's worth, I said my two bits. If it must be, I could live with a mod group (heck, since I'm freeloading, I can LIVE with anything). However, if someone (backbone admins?) makes this change, I suggest they and the moderator of the group closely watch the before-and-after-moderation traffic, and consider switching back to an unmoderated group if there is not a significant decrease in traffic. -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan Working is not a synonym for Quality.
dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) (11/09/85)
You might like to know that a particular (and to most people obscure) posting in net.sources.mac was so useful in one of our projects that I've been using it ever since as a justification to my management for our connection to the news net - and what's more they accept the argument. So I don't mind if you change names but please don't rm the group!
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/11/85)
> objection that such posts are not source code. While there has been source > code posted to the group (and it is instructive if not actually useful), > transportability and frequent lack of the actual source make an encoded > executable the most practicle thing to post in many cases. Keep in mind > this group is for a one-lung micro, not a good-sized mini. I don't buy this. The IBM-PC is certainly no more of a computer (less of a micro) than the Mac, and there have been plenty of excellent sources in Turbo Pascal, 'C', and even Basic posted for it. There have also been a few binaries (ced.com.uu springs to mind), but at least the binaries have been uuencoded and uuencode source for UNIX has been posted to net.sources. If the IBM-PC can do it, why *NOT* the Mac? -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (11/12/85)
In article <434@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I don't buy this. The IBM-PC is certainly no more of a computer (less of a >micro) than the Mac, and there have been plenty of excellent sources in >Turbo Pascal, 'C', and even Basic posted for it. There have also been a >few binaries (ced.com.uu springs to mind), but at least the binaries have >been uuencoded and uuencode source for UNIX has been posted to net.sources. >If the IBM-PC can do it, why *NOT* the Mac? I don't understand this. What is the importance of uuencode in the discussion. Binhex is used for the mac, and an excellent decoder of binhex was posted to the net. (xbin). In source. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 Bogus newsgroup: net.news: Move to end of .newsrc[yn^L]? Don't be dictators, use thought.
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/16/85)
> >I don't buy this. The IBM-PC is certainly no more of a computer (less of a > >micro) than the Mac, and there have been plenty of excellent sources in > >... > >If the IBM-PC can do it, why *NOT* the Mac? > > I don't understand this. What is the importance of uuencode in the discussion. > Binhex is used for the mac, and an excellent decoder of binhex was posted > to the net. (xbin). In source. It's not very important... but it *is* supposed to be the standard binary transfer program for mail and news. It's not that big a deal, though I would prefer to be able to do *something* with this code. The important point is that if you can post IBM-PC sources to the net, why can't you do the same for Macintosh sources? -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (11/20/85)
>> I don't understand this. What is the importance of uuencode in the >> discussion. Binhex is used for the mac, and an excellent decoder of >> binhex was posted to the net. (xbin). In source. > It's not very important... but it *is* supposed to be the standard binary > transfer program for mail and news. It's not that big a deal, though I would > prefer to be able to do *something* with this code. Macintosh files are slightly different from files on most other machines . . . they may contain both a data fork and a resource fork. Sending an arbitrary Mac file using uuencode would require posting *two* binaries, and would have the disadvantages that: (a) there might be more requests for reposts (if the two forks were sent in separate messages) (b) downloading programs from the net would require the ability to do 8-bit binary transfers (currently, BinHexed files can be converted back to a set of binary files on a Unix machine for downloading using MacTerminal, etc. OR can be downloaded to a Mac as a text file and decoded there using BinHex) I don't see why you should have any more problems decoding a BinHex file on your Unix machine than you would have decoding a uuencode file. In case you missed the point of the original message, xbin is a program *that runs under Unix* and that can decode BinHex files into their separate binary forks. > The important point is > that if you can post IBM-PC sources to the net, why can't you do the same for > Macintosh sources? Some Macintosh sources have been posted. But the enormous number of different Macintosh development systems coupled with the fact that there's no "official" native development system for anything other than assembly language means that unless a program's binaries are posted, many of the readers of net.sources.mac will be unable to use it. I think that with a few exceptions, the most useful way to make programs, etc. available on net.sources.mac is to post both source and binary form. Two exceptions: 1) Fonts and other resources which are usually created in binary form 2) Macintosh versions of large programs for which source has been made available at some previous date. In this case, it's appropriate to post the binary version of the program and perhaps the Mac-specific sources. The example which I'm thinking of is Kermit; if there was a Macintosh version of hack, it would also fall under this category. Note also that MacWrite documents are often sent in BinHex form to preserve formatting information; this *is* "source" as far as Mac users are concerned although it is the equivalent of "binaries" for everyone else. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@spice.cs.cmu.edu ..!seismo!spice.cs.cmu.edu!tdn
wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) (11/22/85)
>> I don't understand this. What is the importance of uuencode in the >> discussion. Binhex is used for the mac, and an excellent decoder of >> binhex was posted to the net. (xbin). In source. > > It's not very important... but it *is* supposed to be the standard binary > transfer program for mail and news. It's not that big a deal, though I would > prefer to be able to do *something* with this code. The utilities btoa / atob recently distributed in mod.sources with compress 4.0 produce more efficient encoding than uuencode / uudecode, using 85 of the printable characters rather than 64. I hope that these programs begin to displace uuencode/uudecode and begin to be more universally available at sites to which I might want to send things. And, of course, the combination of compress and btoa is hard to beat for sending text (and often even for binaries). -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,philabs,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/23/85)
> I don't see why you should have any more problems decoding a BinHex file on > your Unix machine than you would have decoding a uuencode file. In case you > missed the point of the original message, xbin is a program *that runs under > Unix* and that can decode BinHex files into their separate binary forks. Except that I never bothered to get xbin because I never expected to want to use it. Oh, forget it. Like I said before, it's a *minor point*. The major point follows: > > The important point is > > that if you can post IBM-PC sources to the net, why can't you do the same for > > Macintosh sources? > > Some Macintosh sources have been posted. But the enormous number of different > Macintosh development systems coupled with the fact that there's no "official" > native development system for anything other than assembly language means that You mean there is an official native development system for the IBM-PC for anything other than assembly language? I've seen programs for the PC in various flavors of 'C', Turbo pascal, Xlisp, Forth, and even Basic. I have seen one uuencoded program that was only available in that form (ced), and one uuencoded program for which the source was avalable (shell). I have converted IBM-PC programs in several flavors of 'C' to run under UNIX. The only sources I've seen on the mac were both in 'C': one was a skeleton for doing various window stuff and the other was a window manager to let the Mac act like a Blit. Do Macintosh people ever write programs that do anything, or do they just play with their windows all day? -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/24/85)
> > I don't understand this. What is the importance of uuencode in the discussion. > > Binhex is used for the mac, and an excellent decoder of binhex was posted > > to the net. (xbin). In source. > > It's not very important... but it *is* supposed to be the standard binary > transfer program for mail and news. It's not that big a deal, though I would Wonderful. What good is a standard that's unavailable to half the net??? uu{en,de}code comes with 4.2 UUCP. Not System {III,V}. Not V[67]. Not [XV]enix. So it MUST be a standard. AAUGH! On the other hand, BinHex is posted every so often, IN SOURCE, to net.sources.mac, so it's always easy to find. If this IBM-PC mod group goes through I'll be glad to provide a binary-to-ASCII program in BASICA; I can't help Xenix PCers, unless they get MBasic in Xenix (if they get C I'm sure I can post a C version as well). --Brandon -- "This civilization, too, must be allowed to fall..." Brandon S. Allbery ncoast!allbery@Case.CSNet (ncoast!allbery%Case.CSNet@CSNet-Relay.ARPA) ..decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa -- maybe ..genrad!mit-eddie!futura!ncoast!allbery 6615 Center St., Mentor, OH 44060 (I moved) --Phone: +01 216 974 9210 CIS 74106,1032 -- MCI MAIL BALLBERY (WARNING: I am only a part-time denizen...) ncoast is dead, long live ncoast!
rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (11/26/85)
In article <463@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Do Macintosh people ever write programs that do anything, or do they just play >with their windows all day? >-- >Name: Peter da Silva >Graphic: `-_-' >UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter >IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter > What is this venomous insulting posting doing in this group? There are Unix professionals out there making good use of the information passed in the Mac groups. If you don't understand what is going on, remove the groups from your site. Why is this group filling up with adolescent flameage? This is the one group where one should find intelligent, polite discussion about the makeup of the net. -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
dave@rocksvax.FUN (Dave Sewhuk,840-5H,76248,2883513) (11/26/85)
/* rocksvax:net.micro.mac / peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) / 1:45 pm Nov 16, 1985 */ >that if you can post IBM-PC sources to the net, why can't you do the same for >Macintosh sources? 1) Different development environments. The only standard one is MDS on a Lisa. Most people I suspect don't own a Lisa (AKA Mac XL) Ex: -include file differences: qd.h in Megamax is similar to quickdraw.h in MANX Ifdefing all this junk makes for more bytes to xfer still making the binary even more attractive. -capitalization differences, etc -how do you include the bits for some picture resource and window templates without sending some binary glue? Not everyone's RMaker can make all the resources. 2) The PC is a much more simple model to interface to so the code ought to be more generic and free of compiler idiosyncracies. Ex: most people probably have the same interface to do BDOS(22). I am not sure about this one but I suspect that the most complex data structure usually manipulated is a FCB like thing. No Graphic hooks, device management, memory management. 3) No 2 PC's are alike so you have to have the sources to customize any program. Macs are pretty much mac's. 4) As pointed out earlier the BinHex binary form is usually shorter than the the sum of the source files. Without things like make, you even have to add instructions on how to glue the sources together. My vote, keep the binaries coming, send sources when appropriate... --- Dave arpa: Sewhuk.HENR@Xerox.ARPA uucp: {ihnp4,rochester,amd,sunybcs}!rocksvax!dave ns: "Sewhuk:HENR801C:Xerox".ns@Xerox.ARPA
76645572@sdcc13.UUCP ({|lit}) (11/27/85)
There have been lots of postings saying that we should send only source code, since the name of the group is net.SOURCES.mac, or saying that we should post only binary files, since they are shorter. The unfortunate truth is that we need both source and binary files, since each serves a different purpose. This may sound strange, since source and object are two representations of the same thing, but most of us can't convert between them easily, like some of the UNIX-heads assume we can. Source code would suffice if we all had the same compiler. But there are 6 C compilers, soon to be 3 Pascal compilers, Forth, Lisp, Modula, and who knows what else. Obviously there is no standard language. This is not to say that source code is not useful, it is very useful. It provides good examples to many people, and can often be modified to work on their own compiler. But distributing source code is, for the most part, distributing examples of how to code. Most people will be unable to produce executable code from a source file. This is why we also need to send binary versions of the programs. Also, many times the source to a useful program is unavailable. Since we do have a problem with the amount of stuff being posted, we do need to set up some restrictions. Hopefully voluntary restrictions will be enough. Maybe something as simple as: Don't post stuff that really isn't useful. However, I have few qualms about most of the stuff that has been posted recently, I have found much of it useful. The answer my be in mod.sources.mac. But it is certainly not in arbitrarily prohibiting either binary files or source files. David Shayer, UCSD