jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (05/11/91)
I've just finished a program and magazine article and I sent it
off to STart Magazine. So right now, I'm planning my next bit of
work and I'm wondering which direction I'm going to work towards.
The biggest problem is deciding marketing methods.
1. Shareware: I'm getting more and more convinced that this is a
bad idea. It's not just a matter of how little money most shareware
publishers are getting. I think there's a much more important
problem. For the last decade, "the big lie" in the computer field
was the availability of tons and tons of "Public Domain" software.
Ask yourself whether you were told this by somebody back when you
were deciding whether to buy your first computer. "There's so much
you can do" and "all you have to do is buy a computer!" Absolute
B*llsh*t! You had to do *much* more than just buy a computer.
And furthermore, if you looked into the situation, there simply
wasn't "tons and tons of Public Domain" software. Oh, there was
a lot of software that people were telling you was Public Domain,
but if you really looked into it, and did some digging around, like
phoning some of the authors of so-called Public Domain software,
often it was "ripped off" software or software with specific limitations
on how you could use it. Some of the authors I've contacted were
irate about the mis-use of their software. Shareware just succeeds
in muddying the water even more. There are so many variations
of restrictions on re-distribution and usage of software, most
BBS sysops who care at all about legalities are even reaching the
point where they can't be bothered worrying about it anymore.
This could get so bad that we'll see the publishers getting
the police out confiscating equipment. They already have been
to a small extent.
On Usenet, this is even more obnoxious. The basic concept
of all networks is "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
That is to say, I'll do you the favour of carrying your files to
other people and you do the same for me. In the News style systems
this goes further: "I'll help you with your problems, and give you
valuable information, if you'll help me, someday." That is
to say we share the information because we *all* get something
out of it, or at least expect to. Stating it further, we should
expect to get equal "benefit" for the help we give others -- both
in terms of advice and in terms of files. When you demand payment
from people based on whether they are a "commercial site", for
example, you're really snubbing them. It's like your saying
"you are 'allowed' to see me picking your pocket as you pay for
the transfer and storage of my file, but if you want any 'benefit'
for having done so, you'll have to pay me extra!" And the
bigger joke is that this "commercial" site may be some individual
working hard just to make ends meet getting a small time consulting
company off the ground with less disposable cash than some
student sitting in an EDU site paid for by his/her parents!
In the long run, there's no real justification for having
*any* restrictions on *any* files posted to a newsgroup. Even the
GNU "copyleft" is nothing by hypocritical masterbation in that sense.
I will do my best to "respect" such restrictions, but I believe
it is only right to post TRUE PUBLIC DOMAIN files in Usenet Newsgroups.
2. Traditional Publishers: The cost of packaging an "store shelf"
product is pretty high. It seems to me that only the most widely
popular products are worth marketting this way.
3. Magazines: Magazines can justify the inclusion of much small
programs and programs of less general interest because over a year
a subscriber can count on finding *some* programs of interest.
STart Magazine, for all the criticism levelled against it, has
paid good rates to writers, making many of the lesser programs viable.
Furthermore, because it integrated a "store shelf" publishing business
with its "magazine disk" business, it was possible for people like
Tom Hudson and Jim Kent to develop large bodies of programs which
they might not have had the opportunity to develop in other ways.
Many other magazines crow about their "Public Domain" disks,
but they don't *pay*. As such, they survive off the scroungings
from BBS files and "crippleware" demo files. As such, they are
really not doing much to promote real development. Don't expect
to see the "next Tom Hudson" working for them. At best they may
get some good stuff from people living off the money of others --
more students living off their parents and such. Now if you're a
student you might want to submit something to them, but what good
is it *really* going to do you? Reputation? To an extent, you can
take your reputation from such publications and a buck and buy a
cuppa coffee. A career? Forget it. I've done so much free work
over the years you could wallpaper a shopping mall with the
printouts. The only thing it gets you is more requests to do
more free work.
Anyway, as you can see, my belief is clearly that the only
"good" ways to market software are either "store shelf" or magazine,
and if by magazine, one that *pays*.
But that leads me to wonder who's left in the Atari Publishing
world? In particular, which magazines are paying for programs
and what happens if I want to develop a program further? All
I've seen lately in North America for paying work is STart Magazine.
The other stuff seem to all be "fanzine" and beg for contributions.
Pay? Money? "Why aren't you glad for the opportunity to do
something for others? [#define others the-publisher]"
Also, exactly what *did* happen at STart? Did they sell off
all their "store shelf" business or is "The Catalogue" still
part of their overall business? I haven't seen ads for it lately.
--
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomuradmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) (05/11/91)
In article <1991May10.185652.19983@lsuc.on.ca> jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes: > >1. Shareware: I'm getting more and more convinced that this is a >bad idea. It's not just a matter of how little money most shareware >publishers are getting. > [...] > In the long run, there's no real justification for having >*any* restrictions on *any* files posted to a newsgroup. Even the >GNU "copyleft" is nothing by hypocritical masterbation in that sense. >I will do my best to "respect" such restrictions, but I believe >it is only right to post TRUE PUBLIC DOMAIN files in Usenet Newsgroups. These days, as you point out, "Shareware" is essentially the same as freeware, in that the author gets about enough money to buy a sandwich as thanks for distributing the software. However, you have to be careful about equating shareware/freeware with so-called "public domain" software and documents. "Public domain," of course, implies that anyone can do whatever they want with it, including use it verbatim in their own programs, magazine, etc. (At least that's impression I get.) It only takes one company/person/group "stealing" the fruits of your labors (where "stealing" could be a lot of different things) before you realize how important copyright notices, distribution restrictions, etc. are. I've mentioned this before, but I'll restate it for the benefit of those who are relatively new to this group: As many readers know, I've been editing the "ST Picture Formats List" since 1988. It has involved a great deal of work on the part of lots of Usenet folks (by no means just me). If it weren't for the cooperation and generosity of the contributors, there would be NO reference guide to picture formats on the ST. But until 1990, I had no copyright on there, no distribution restrictions, etc. because I assumed that anyone printing the list would give us all credit. After all, what's the big deal in saying, "This was created by the following Atari Usenet readers: [names]"? Or for that matter, why edit out the credits in the first place? Well, someone (nameless) plagiarzed it outright. They printed it, made money off it, and didn't give any of us credit. In fact, they implied they'd written it out of the goodness of their hearts. How sweet. The point is, there _are_ people out there who are unethical. Even something as "simple" as an electronically published FREE document must be protected. So there is ABSOLUTELY good reason to put distribution restrictions and copyright notices on would-be public domain materials, even documents. The fact that "legal wording" muddies the water is no excuse to ignore it. I don't want people stealing stuff I write/edit/distribute for FREE and making money off it. Period. If I wanted people to have to pay money for it, I would have distributed it through commercial channels. As an example, I'm sure a magazine would have bought the Picture Formats List as a serial or mini-column, and I could have made some $$$ off it. That, however, was not my intention; I just wanted to help out other ST programmers. The thanks we all got for our efforts was to have someone plagiarze it and charge other people for the information. So there are two sides to the issue, and the issue is by no means simple. > Many other magazines crow about their "Public Domain" disks, >but they don't *pay*. As such, they survive off the scroungings >from BBS files and "crippleware" demo files. As such, they are >really not doing much to promote real development. Agreed. But do they have any responsibility to encourage development? I view magazines that don't encourage software development (and/or steal things outright) as rags. I'm sure I'm not alone there, and that's one of the things that separates a rag from a quality publication, in my opinion. >Don't expect to see the "next Tom Hudson" working for them. The whole Antic Software/STart magazine thing struck me as conflict of interest. While I don't remember any blatant STart magazine plugs of Antic Software, it's still hard to imagine a magazine claiming to be unbiased when it has a 14 page catalog of its own software. Again, just my opinion. > I've done so much free work >over the years you could wallpaper a shopping mall with the >printouts. The only thing it gets you is more requests to do >more free work. If you do free work for reputation or money or pretty much anything in the "personal gain" category, you're doing it for the wrong reason, IMHO. If you help others in the hope that your attitude will encourage the others whom you've helped to do the same, then you're probably going to be happier about the whole situation. I still think that kind of attitude is contagious; maybe I just haven't been doing it long enough to become cynical about it. Of course there is some satisfication just in seeing other people use your software/documentation as well. > Anyway, as you can see, my belief is clearly that the only >"good" ways to market software are either "store shelf" or magazine, >and if by magazine, one that *pays*. I can see why one would have that feeling, but I don't think it has to be quite so black-and-white. If you whip up a little utility to convert FOO to BAR, or turn the screen sideways, then what's the big deal about making it available for free? If you put many hours of work into something, then perhaps you'll be willing to go to the trouble of writing it up for a magazine. I usually prefer to have immediate distribution, instead of waiting N+1 months for the final product to appear in stores/magazines. Dave Baggett dmb%wam.umd.edu@uunet.uu.net
dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) (05/12/91)
[I'm posting the following on behalf of Michal Jaegermann <NTOMCZAK@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA>, who gets c.s.a.st through a digest. - dmb] Return-Path: NTOMCZAK@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA Received: from vm.ucs.ualberta.ca by cscwam.umd.edu id <AA14025@cscwam.umd.edu>; Sat, 11 May 91 16:50:20 -0400 Message-Id: <9105112050.AA14025@cscwam.umd.edu> Received: from VM.UCS.UALBERTA.CA by vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 7998; Sat, 11 May 91 14:50:29 MDT Received: by UALTAVM (Mailer R2.07) id 7997; Sat, 11 May 91 14:50:28 MDT Date: Sat, 11 May 91 14:49:20 MDT From: Michal Jaegermann <NTOMCZAK@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA> Posted-By: dmb%wam.umd.edu@uunet.uu.net Jim Omura (lsuc!jimomura) posted recently in c.s.a.s. long diatribe against different forms of software you can find on usenet, different archives and bbs's. He is definitely against stuff where copyright notice is included and somehow managed to convey a feeling that nets are ripping him off. This is exactly the same guy who just annouced that he used copyrighted but free Sozobon C, which he got probably just from that very net, to create a commercial (mildly commercial, mind you, but still) application. He is also quietly forgetting that, apart of original authors, quite a number of people chipped to the software which he is using in by providing libraries, bug fixes, hand-holding, storing, transfering and other form of support. Just to provide a tool he is using and no "STart" would do that, for many diverse reasons. On the top of it, he recently asked on the net for a help. Even if his request really boiled down to "Help me! I don't know how to program." he got this help and even acknowledged this. Therefore I am finding his shrieks somewhat curious, inconsinstent with his actions and a little bit brazen. Maybe he just had a bad day. But why to vent somebodys bad humours all over the world? Michal Jagermann ntomczak@vm.ucs.ualberta.ca
kgg@zinn.MV.COM (Kenn Goutal) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May11.211802.22320@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >[I'm posting the following on behalf of Michal Jaegermann ><NTOMCZAK@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA>, who gets c.s.a.st through a digest. - dmb] >From: Michal Jaegermann <NTOMCZAK@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA> > >Jim Omura (lsuc!jimomura) posted recently in c.s.a.s. long diatribe >against different forms of software you can find on usenet, different >archives and bbs's. He is definitely against stuff where copyright >notice is included and somehow managed to convey a feeling that >nets are ripping him off. > > [details edited out --Kenn] > > Michal Jagermann > ntomczak@vm.ucs.ualberta.ca Oh, I didn't get that "feeling" at all. The message I got was that his impression is that he cannot expect to make a living (or even a part of one) by distributing products as shareware because of the preponderence of individuals who feel no compunctions about paying the author for the software they use and because of the preponderence of individuals who feel no compunctions about distributing shareware in ways that make it hard to tell what's shareware, what's freeware, and what's public domain. I gather that there are some authors who even today manages to defray a small part of their development costs from shareware revenues, but I also gather that that is less true today than it was for a while, and in any case that quite a different story from meeting costs and exceeding them enough to buy a sandwich or two. So, my impression accords with what I believe is his impression. This is not at all to say that "the nets are ripping [people] off". As long as one understands from the outset that the ground rules only allow for posting stuff pro bono, and posts stuff with that understanding, one is not being ripped off. One who does not understand that, well, is still not being ripped off, but is caught in a misconception. What's disconcerting to me that while I can understand that Usenet *cannot* be used as a vehicle for commercial enterprise, but *must* be maintained as a pro bono vehicle, there is no reason why this should be true of the commercial systems such as CIS, GEnie, etc, yet this seems to be the case. That is, there does *not* seem to be a commercial system which can be used as a vehicle for marketing and selling software products. (Jim's article and maybe one of the followups mentioned STart and a couple other systems. I know nothing about them. Maybe one or more of them fulfills this need.) -- Kenn Goutal CompuServe: 71117.2572 (PARTI handle: kenn) GEnie: K.GOUTAL Internet: kenn@zinn.MV.COM or kenn@rr.MV.COM [The] PO!NT: kenn Telepath: kenn UUCP: ...decvax!zinn!kenn or ...decvax!zinn!rr!kenn +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Ship and Travel Intermodally -- Commute Electronically! | +-----------------------------------------------------------+
ken@isgtec.UUCP (Ken Newman) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May10.185652.19983@lsuc.on.ca>, jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes: |> |> I've just finished a program and magazine article and I sent it |> off to STart Magazine. So right now, I'm planning my next bit of |> work... |> All I've seen lately in North America for paying work is STart Magazine. |> Good luck in getting your stuff published in Start. If it does by some miracle, you will not get paid for it. As far as I have been able to tell, they have not been paying authors for a long time (including me). Start is going down real fast. They are not getting any advertising money - advertisers are staying away in droves. I actually heard recently they've been running some ads *for free* just to try and keep things alive. Bob Brodie is doing his new column for free. A great pity, Start's kinda all there is left in terms of mainstream Atari magazines in North America. - kn
jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (05/14/91)
In article <1325@zinn.MV.COM> kgg@zinn.MV.COM (Kenn Goutal) writes: >In article <1991May11.211802.22320@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >>[I'm posting the following on behalf of Michal Jaegermann >><NTOMCZAK@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA>, who gets c.s.a.st through a digest. - dmb] >>From: Michal Jaegermann <NTOMCZAK@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA> >> >>Jim Omura (lsuc!jimomura) posted recently in c.s.a.s. long diatribe >>against different forms of software you can find on usenet, different >>archives and bbs's. He is definitely against stuff where copyright >>notice is included and somehow managed to convey a feeling that >>nets are ripping him off. ... >Oh, I didn't get that "feeling" at all. >The message I got was that his impression is that he cannot expect to make >a living (or even a part of one) by distributing products as shareware >because of the preponderence of individuals who feel no compunctions about >paying the author for the software they use and because of the preponderence >of individuals who feel no compunctions about distributing shareware in >ways that make it hard to tell what's shareware, what's freeware, and >what's public domain. > >I gather that there are some authors who even today manages to defray >a small part of their development costs from shareware revenues, >but I also gather that that is less true today than it was for a while, >and in any case that quite a different story from meeting costs and >exceeding them enough to buy a sandwich or two. >So, my impression accords with what I believe is his impression. >This is not at all to say that "the nets are ripping [people] off". >As long as one understands from the outset that the ground rules only >allow for posting stuff pro bono, and posts stuff with that understanding, >one is not being ripped off. One who does not understand that, well, >is still not being ripped off, but is caught in a misconception. Well, essentially you've understood what I was saying, but Michal wasn't entirely wrong about what I said either. I didn't say that *I* was being ripped off, but that to an extent, yes, sometimes people are being denied use of material from the Net whereas they are being put to the expense of passing it around and to that extent, they *can* claim to being ripped off. And they are given the opportunity to actually see it happen, which makes it quite brazen. Let's look at a specific example. As far as I remember, Lattice used to be on the Net. I don't know if they still are, but I'm fairly sure they were a few years ago. Now Sozobon C is not "begware" at this time. That is to say, they are not asking for money for their current distribution, so please keep in mind that this is only hypothetical. Also, the Sozobon authors are *not* on the Net and never "sent it down the Net". But let's say that one of the authors of Sozobon had sent a copy of Sozobon C down the net with a request for $30.00. Not unreasonable, and not unusual. Now the 'lattice' site would have the great joy of passing on a product that was probably taking money from their sales, and being expect to pay themselves, in terms of connections facilities and storage, as well as messages assisting people later who use Sozobon C. Now that's an extreme case. But 1 of the points I was making was that even the least restrictive restrictions are still going be a reduction of the value of the Net to *somebody*. And to an extent, we have generally agreed that we'll live with it. Me too, obviously. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a "better way." What's interesting is that there are so many people who are "new" to the Net that this whole argument seems to be new to a lot of people. This is one of the oldest historical arguments on the Net. It may surprise many here, but there has *always* been a disagreement with posting of binary files, for example, if you don't post the source code. Why? Well, you are *supposed* to share your material with the widest possible number of people on the Net. Posting a binary which can't be ported to other machines was (and in many peoples opinion still is) a violation of Nettiquette. And "those people" are for the most part the very people who were the main builders of the Net. What do you think "those people" think when they see a file that is Binary, Copyrighted, and *demands* money? It was this "free exchange" of information that was the very basis of the Net. And I think it's what makes it better than FidoNet, which was *not* based on this principle so much as it was based on the fact that they saw what was happening on the InterNet and realized that such a thing was good. >What's disconcerting to me that while I can understand that Usenet >*cannot* be used as a vehicle for commercial enterprise, but *must* >be maintained as a pro bono vehicle, there is no reason why this >should be true of the commercial systems such as CIS, GEnie, etc, >yet this seems to be the case. That is, there does *not* seem to >be a commercial system which can be used as a vehicle for marketing >and selling software products. (Jim's article and maybe one of the >followups mentioned STart and a couple other systems. I know nothing >about them. Maybe one or more of them fulfills this need.) Exactly true! But not simply because CIS, Genie, BIX and Delphi are commercial. That has nothing to do with it. The point is that what *you* download from CIS is something that both you and CIS have agreed to be a part of. They are *not* sending you Sozobon C by using Lattices's expenses. The only people involved are you and CIS. What I think a lot of people should do is stick a sign on their monitors and read it every now and then: "The Net is NOT a BBS." Anyway, this is really not that important to me, so hopefully, unless someone else is getting something out of it, it'll end soon. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.124316.29136@lsuc.on.ca> jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes: > Now the 'lattice' site would have >the great joy of passing on a product that was probably taking >money from their sales, and being expect to pay themselves, in >terms of connections facilities and storage, as well as messages >assisting people later who use Sozobon C. Ahhh! Now that's the key issue, isn't it. That the net is actully cooperative anarchy, both in management and in cost-sharing, and that shareware that is "too good" actually takes money away from "real" companies. A similar example of the "shareware that's too good" problem happens with games. Suppose Joe Freeware writes a perfect Tetris clone for the ST, and makes it free or shareware. Just having the game out there will hurt the sales of "BigSoft's" licensed, commercial, "official" version of the game that BigSoft paid oodles of money for the rights to distribute. In fact, a free clone that is substantially better than the "official" version could absolutely kill sales. I wonder if BigSoft could then sue the shareware author for loss of sales. I seem to remember something like this being discussed in comp.sys.amiga regarding Tetris and Spectrum Holobyte, but I don't know the details. In that sense, it seems like you're right in saying that shareware is not a good idea. Even shareware products that are compltely original (and not just clones) may still hurt commercial software, and this is probably bad for the ST community in general, since reduced profitability from software sales makes good developers quit. But unfortunately, the Tetris example above still applies to freeware, public domain, and public domain-with-souce-code (even more so, in fact). And we are not alone here. This is something that's possibly going to happen in the music business too, as more and more people get home studios capable of producing CD-quality recordings. What a legal morass! Nevertheless, what we DON'T want to see is a bunch of court cases against unknowing shareware authors. And we DON'T want zillions of restrictions on what can be written and distributed by shareware authors. The optimal solution would be to encourage shareware authors to sell their best stuff. A great shareware program could be SOLD for a small fee (19.95 or so). If some authors don't want to spend their lives doing tech support, then perhaps a new class of "cheap-but-no-tech-support" software should come about. I imagine most shareware authors don't realize how they may be affecting the commerical market. If they did, they might go to the trouble of selling their software. > What's interesting is that there are so many people who are >"new" to the Net that this whole argument seems to be new to a lot >of people. This is one of the oldest historical arguments on the Net. >It may surprise many here, but there has *always* been a disagreement >with posting of binary files, for example, if you don't post the >source code. Why? Well, you are *supposed* to share your material >with the widest possible number of people on the Net. Posting a >binary which can't be ported to other machines was (and in many peoples >opinion still is) a violation of Nettiquette. And "those people" >are for the most part the very people who were the main builders >of the Net. What do you think "those people" think when they see >a file that is Binary, Copyrighted, and *demands* money? One crucial point you're missing about the current situation in comp.sys.atari.st is that almost everything is "posted" via FTP now. I haven't posted anything to comp.binaries for ages. So no one can say that it's costing anyone anything to maintin my shareware files, except for the generous folks at atari.archive who have made it clear that they don't mind. FTP is very different from "the Net" -- do you have the same feelings about things "posted" via FTP? Dave Baggett dmb%wam.umd.edu@uunet.uu.net
uace0@menudo.uh.edu (Michael B. Vederman) (05/16/91)
In article <1059@isgtec.UUCP> ken@isgtec.UUCP (Ken Newman) writes: > >In article <1991May10.185652.19983@lsuc.on.ca>, jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim >Omura) writes: >|> >|> I've just finished a program and magazine article and I sent it >|> off to STart Magazine. So right now, I'm planning my next bit of >|> work... >|> All I've seen lately in North America for paying work is STart Magazine. >|> > >Good luck in getting your stuff published in Start. If it does by some >miracle, you will not get paid for it. As far as I have been able to tell, >they have not been paying authors for a long time (including me). Start is >going down real fast. They are not getting any advertising money - advertisers >are staying away in droves. I actually heard recently they've been running >some ads *for free* just to try and keep things alive. Bob Brodie is doing >his new column for free. A great pity, Start's kinda all there is left >in terms of mainstream Atari magazines in North America. >- kn You're not the Lone Ranger! STart is dead! The magazine is not being published any more. Antic software is in (and I quote) "Survival mode" and is selling all their ST software at outrageous prices, and even trying to cut special deals with distributors. They have not paid us for two (2!) years for the sales of Shadow!!! *** As a side note, we have terminated the contract with Antic and now have *** regained complete control of Shadow. WE ARE UPGRADING SHADOW NOW!!! *** Stay tuned for more details about Shadow 2.0! We heard and are doing! They say they have "every intention of paying everyone we owe money to." Sure, sure... We hope so. As an editorial aside... It is truly sad to see this happen. I remember buying Antic #1 when I had my 8-bit. I 'grew up' with Antic, watched them grow and become a major selling point for Atari. They were the last cornerstone in the US market. (OK, so ICD now is the last cornerstone - at least they are doing ok). If anyone wants to keep tabs or follow the creative forces that were once Antic software, then buy AutoDesk software. Many of the Atari greats from Antic work there (Tom Hudson, Jim Kent, Gary Yost, etc...) - mike -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Double Click Me | Double Click Software | P.O. Box 741206 | Houston, Tx, 77274 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Voice: (713)977-6520 | DC DESKTOP | DC FORMATTER | DC UTILITIES | and others
jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May15.144206.14581@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >In article <1991May14.124316.29136@lsuc.on.ca> jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes: ... >I imagine most shareware authors don't realize how they may be >affecting the commerical market. If they did, they might go to the >trouble of selling their software. As I've noted before at time, it seems to me that *most* shareware authors aren't thinking much about what they are doing at all, let alone how it affects the commercial market. I've found that in a large number of cases people put on restrictions, Copyright notices, money begs, and such just because they see other people doing it. You wouldn't believe how many times I asked people why they put a Copyright notice on something and the answer was something like "isn't that what you're supposed to do?" When I asked what they meant by "supposed to," I got the equivalent of a blank stare. >> What's interesting is that there are so many people who are >>"new" to the Net that this whole argument seems to be new to a lot >>of people. This is one of the oldest historical arguments on the Net. >>It may surprise many here, but there has *always* been a disagreement >>with posting of binary files, for example, if you don't post the >>source code. Why? Well, you are *supposed* to share your material >>with the widest possible number of people on the Net. Posting a >>binary which can't be ported to other machines was (and in many peoples >>opinion still is) a violation of Nettiquette. And "those people" >>are for the most part the very people who were the main builders >>of the Net. What do you think "those people" think when they see >>a file that is Binary, Copyrighted, and *demands* money? > >One crucial point you're missing about the current situation in >comp.sys.atari.st is that almost everything is "posted" via FTP now. I >haven't posted anything to comp.binaries for ages. So no one can say >that it's costing anyone anything to maintin my shareware files, except >for the generous folks at atari.archive who have made it clear that they >don't mind. > >FTP is very different from "the Net" -- do you have the same feelings >about things "posted" via FTP? Well, teh question is, having read my reasons, and added your own, and those of other people, what do *you* feel about it? I'm getting the impression that you think that I had very heavy feelings about the matter. If you still have my original message lying around I think you'll find it interesting to read it again. I never said that this was an all-consuming-passionate-belief-in-the-core-of-my-soul. But since you ask, I'll lay out the 2 points and apply them: 1. As far as objections to Shareware based on its distribution on the Internet is concerned, no, of course direct FTP doesn't violate the principles of Nettiquette. That's always been clear, and I specifically noted that in the case of CIS, it had nothing to do with it being commercial. You're simply not using the Net when you call a site directly. I can't make that point any clearer. 2. Shareware still does add to the problem of causing confusion to end users and of course BBS operators and just about everybody else who comes into contact with them. That confusion hurts in a couple of way. One way is that it makes people stop caring about the differences between all the different variations and they find it easier to violate notices -- easier for them to ignore their consciences and become pirates. Also it makes it easier to violate Copyrights even when people are still being consciencious because they sometimes don't understand or don't remember that a specific restriction was on a particular piece of software. Whew. Umm. In all this discussion on those points, nobody has mentioned any of the current magazines for the ST in North America. Aside from Explorer, and the "fanzine" thingy (I can't remember the name -- it's the one that's just a bunch of reprints of club newsletters), are there any others? > >Dave Baggett >dmb%wam.umd.edu@uunet.uu.net -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham S Thomas) (05/21/91)
From article <1991May16.140706.26180@menudo.uh.edu>, by uace0@menudo.uh.edu (Michael B. Vederman): > > If anyone wants to keep tabs or follow the creative forces that were once > Antic software, then buy AutoDesk software. Many of the Atari greats from > Antic work there (Tom Hudson, Jim Kent, Gary Yost, etc...) > > - mike Pardon my ignorance, but I don't know anything about AutoDesk software. Assuming AutoDesk is a company, what do they produce? (If it's a product, what is it?) I asked a question recently about Tom Hudson's whereabouts, but got no reply. I know Mike Vederman's usually very good about passing on information, so I'm wondering if my messages are getting out to the world. If you have time, and live in (let's try to restrict this) the Southern or Western USA, could you please mail me a *short* acknowledement that you've seen this message? Thanks. Graham -- Graham Thomas, SPRU, Mantell Building, U of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RF, UK Email: grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk Phone: +44 273 678165 Fax: .. 685865
jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (05/22/91)
In article <5172@syma.sussex.ac.uk> grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham S Thomas) writes: >From article <1991May16.140706.26180@menudo.uh.edu>, by uace0@menudo.uh.edu (Michael B. Vederman): >> >> If anyone wants to keep tabs or follow the creative forces that were once >> Antic software, then buy AutoDesk software. Many of the Atari greats from >> Antic work there (Tom Hudson, Jim Kent, Gary Yost, etc...) >> >> - mike > >Pardon my ignorance, but I don't know anything about AutoDesk software. >Assuming AutoDesk is a company, what do they produce? (If it's a >product, what is it?) > Autodesk is, as far as I know, the biggest seller of CAD products in the computer industry. At least they have the largest number of unit sales. They dominate the MS-DOS world. Their products include AutoCAD, and now the Generic CAD line as well. Of course, if you *really* want to be on the cutting edge and the "top stuff" in the industry, it's not really AutoCAD at all. The top stuff is all running on Silicon Graphics Iris Workstations. That's what the car manufacturers use (companies like GM, Volvo, I think Mercedes-Benz, Honda too), Braun, and of course the major part of the 3D animation production as well. But that's digressing. . . . -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (05/22/91)
Ok. So now we know that STart may be gone from the North America
scene, and what's left is pretty much just a couple of "fanzine"
things. We'll hope that this improves. . . .
Can someone in Great Britain please clarify what's going on
across the great puddle? I guess the first question I have is
what is exactly the situation with "ST World"? Are they really
trying for a come-back? I thought the whole thing was sold to
"ST User"? If so, will they be accepting submissions for publication?
Is there a mailing address?
I always thought of "ST Format" as a games magazine, but I
bought the May '91 issue and it has coverage of desktop publishing
and the monthly disk has a bunch of programming utilities (admittedly
nothing new). That looks promising.
What's "ST User" been like lately? I haven't even seen it
around for about a half a year now, so I'm wary about sending anything
to them.
--
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomuramarc@sequoia.cray.com (Marc Bouron) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May22.021421.23656@lsuc.on.ca>, jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes: |> [ stuff deleted.. ] |> Can someone in Great Britain please clarify what's going on |> across the great puddle? I guess the first question I have is |> what is exactly the situation with "ST World"? Are they really |> trying for a come-back? I thought the whole thing was sold to |> "ST User"? If so, will they be accepting submissions for publication? |> Is there a mailing address? Database PUblications is now Europress (or something like that). ST WORLD was `bundled' with ST USER last month. I presume this is going to continue... I'd never ead ST WORLD before, and thought it was a bit thin. But then again, take all the games out of USER and it would probably be just as thin... :-) |> [ more stuff deleted.. ] |> What's "ST User" been like lately? I haven't even seen it |> around for about a half a year now, so I'm wary about sending anything |> to them. Ever since they changed the staff at ST USER, I've cringed at the atrocious teenage slang they use in place of English, right? ( :-) ) Still, I continue to subscribe. Probably for the Ads, if nothing else. However, with the new ownership, I think the staff list has changed again. Perhaps better English from now on?? |> Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 |> lsuc!jimomura |> Byte Information eXchange: jimomura [M][a][r][c] ################################################################################ # # marc@sequoia.cray.com # . . # # Marc CR Bouron # M.Bouron@cray.co.uk (ARPA) # _|\ /|_ # # Cray Research (UK) Ltd. # M.Bouron@crayuk.uucp (DOMAIN) # (_|_V_|_) # # +44 344 485971 x2208 # M.Bouron@uk.co.cray (JANET) # | | # # # ...!ukc!crayuk!M.Bouron (UUCP) # # ################################################################################
SYSPMZT@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com (05/29/91)
In article <1991May22.021421.23656@lsuc.on.ca>, jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) says: > > Ok. So now we know that STart may be gone from the North America >scene, and what's left is pretty much just a couple of "fanzine" >things. We'll hope that this improves. . . . >what is exactly the situation with "ST World"? Are they really >trying for a come-back? I thought the whole thing was sold to >"ST User"? If so, will they be accepting submissions for publication? >Is there a mailing address? > I always thought of "ST Format" as a games magazine, but I >bought the May '91 issue and it has coverage of desktop publishing >and the monthly disk has a bunch of programming utilities (admittedly >nothing new). That looks promising. > What's "ST User" been like lately? I haven't even seen it >around for about a half a year now, so I'm wary about sending anything >to them. Can I further the request, and ask what Atari magazine readers of the net find most useful? If possible, could someone post/send addresses for those magazines? I've been trying for 2 weeks to find any Atari magazine locally so that I could look at current mail order prices, and, since I just upgraded my machine, consider once again subscribing. In the large Capital District of NY I haven't been able to find so much as a game magazine that even mentions Atari on the cover! I know that STart is gone, but Amiga's have 3 serious magazines with available distribution around here; Atari has none. I'll probably end up subscribing because of this, but what's going on here? Phil Z
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (05/31/91)
Phil Z writes: >In the large Capital >District of NY I haven't been able to find so much as a game magazine >that even mentions Atari on the cover! I know that STart is gone, but >Amiga's have 3 serious magazines with available distribution around here; >Atari has none. I'll probably end up subscribing because of this, but >what's going on here? You're seeing effects of the death of the Atari marketplace in the US. There are no longer enough Atari users or advertisers to support large "glossy" magazines. There are still a few smaller magazines trying to support the market, but they may be hard to find. Atari Interface magazine is available at many B.Dalton Bookseller stores, as well as WaldenSoftware stores, and many Atari dealers (if you can find one). For a free sample issue of AIM, write to: Unicorn Publications, 3487 Braeburn Circle, Ann Arbor, MI 48108 BobR
davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu (05/31/91)
In article <42806@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: > You're seeing effects of the death of the Atari marketplace in the US. > There are no longer enough Atari users or advertisers to support large > "glossy" magazines. There are still a few smaller magazines trying to > support the market, but they may be hard to find. Not exactly true, Bob. ST Log was making money when it was folded into ANALOG, and was still making money when the publisher decided to discontinue publishing the magazine. Likewise, STart's parent company was still making money from the magazine --- it was 'killed' by cash draw-off to other publications within the same company (or so I am led to believe from the conflicting press reports to which I've had access.) It wasn't from lack of subscribers OR advertisers that these magazines died -- it was a decision by the publishers to put their money into other endeavors. As for other "glossy" magazines, both ST User and ST Format (from England) have been selling well in my own neck of the woods -- I imagine that quite a large number of folks wouldn't mind a subscription service for either (ie. import the magazines from England, ship them to subscribers in the United States). I find them interesting enough to devote the $7.95 + tax that my local ST dealer charges for them each month. -- David Paschall-Zimbel davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
boblu@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Robert Luneski) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May31.100600.1@simvax.labmed.umn.edu> davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu writes: >In article <42806@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: > >> You're seeing effects of the death of the Atari marketplace in the US. >> There are no longer enough Atari users or advertisers to support large >> "glossy" magazines. There are still a few smaller magazines trying to >> support the market, but they may be hard to find. > . . >It wasn't from lack of subscribers OR advertisers that these magazines died -- >it was a decision by the publishers to put their money into other endeavors. > It most certainly was. Look at the number and size of ads in thier final issue. The total advertsing revenue from those is insignificant relative to the cost of producing a glossy. I know of at least three writers for STart that Antic Publishing owes over $3000 each with no ability or intention to pay. They don't have any money left to divert to other endevors. Read the full page editorial in STart's final issue explaining thier decision to go bimonthly. Paraphrased from thier own words, the logic goes like this: 1) No users = No software sales 2) No software sales = No developers 3) No developers = No advertsing 4) No advertising = No magazine Regardless of personnal opinion of the quality of journalism provided by STart, the loss of the last domestically produced glossy is not a good sign for the health of the US Atari community. Unfortunately, it is not the only bad sign. ____ ____ /\/\/\ Bob Luneski Diamond Back II Support: boblu@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM /\/\/\ \/\/\/ Oregon Research Associates Genie: B.LUNESKI1 \/\/\/ \/\/ 16200 S.W. Pacific Hwy., Suite 162 Phone: (503) 620-4919 \/\/ \/ Tigard, OR 97224 FAX: (503) 639-6182 \/
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (06/01/91)
David Paschall-Zimbel writes: >Not exactly true, Bob. ST Log was making money when it was folded into ANAL >and was still making money when the publisher decided to discontinue publish >the magazine. Likewise, STart's parent company was still making money from >magazine --- it was 'killed' by cash draw-off to other publications within t >same company (or so I am led to believe from the conflicting press reports t >which I've had access.) Well, from speaking with the editor and publisher of ANALOG/STlog, LFP, Inc. was reluctant to put the kind of money into the publication that it would tak to really promote it, given the ill health of the Atari marketplace (and that was then... things have gotten steadily worse since..). Their Videogames magazine was given plenty of support and is thriving today in the Nintendo/ Sega/NEC world. I don't recall specifically whether they said if STlog was still making money when it was folded, but just taking a look at the last issue demonstrates that they were in trouble. Much of the ad space was ANALOG ads.. the actual number of advertisers was very small.. a very bad sign. Reports on CompuServe from Paul LeFevre of Antic indicate that STart had been losing money steadily for months. The decision was finally made to halt production and avoid any further losses. Again, taking a look at the last issue, much of the advertising was from ANTIC itself, and you can't pay the bills with free ads. ST User and ST Format are nice, but have little to do with MY world, here in the U.S. It's frustrating to read about products I either can't even buy, or which have no local support, assuming I can find them. I've run up some nice phone bills calling MirrorSoft in England because there is no local support for their Atari products. Seeing their new programs in English magazines does me little good at all. BobR
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (06/01/91)
>>In article <42806@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >> >>> You're seeing effects of the death of the Atari marketplace in the US. Sick != dead. Atari US is still selling every machine they can get, with no obvious sign that that's going to change. I sure don't know what software all those machines are running, but there are pretty good numbers of them. Sick I'll agree with readily: clearly, too sick to support a glossy magazine devoted only to Atari computers. Sick implies 'might die', but it leaves open the possibility 'might recover', too. I'll list some hopeful signs. 1)Atari Corp. has finally cleared away the wreckage of the Federated disaster. 2)The applications which look like the next corporate fads, DTP and combining sound with animations (desktop multimedia) are better supported on Atari hardware than the old fad applications (graphic spreadsheets and professional wordprocessing) were. 3)The game machine segment doesn't seem to have any nasty surprises left. 4)Portfolio looks like a nice steady money generator, but its market niche has become cut-throat enough that Atari is unlikely to put excessive (from an ST fan's viewpoint) effort into follow-ons. 5)There's finally a commercial development system for the TT (Lattice). You pays your money and acts accordingly. I know that a little fella has to be nuts to try to crack the PC software market today. Mac is tough too, but maybe possible. ST and Amiga are still at the stage where a good idea (software or hardware) could be pushed with a limited budget, and have a chance of making a profit. The biggest successes may go on to try other markets; at least the foundation will be in place. Steve saj@chinet.chi.il.us
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (06/04/91)
Spend some time driving around downtown Windsor, Ontario in a van with Dave Small and other Atari developers... talk a little with Charles F. Johnson. Find out how close most developers are to losing everything they've sweated and bled to build up. Talk with magazine publishers and editors who can't pay their contributors because their advertisers are either out of business or can't afford to pay their advertising bills. Talk with dealers who have either gone out of business, losing most of their investments in the Atari market, or who have been forced to go on into other markets. Talk with current Atari dealers who can't get products to sell, so they can stay in business. Europe may be a different story, but in the U.S.A, Atari=dead. Hopeful signs 1-5 = too little, too late. I'm sorry, I don't like it either BobR
kiki@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jack W. Wine) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun01.162956.1057@chinet.chi.il.us> saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: > >1)Atari Corp. has finally cleared away the wreckage of the Federated disaster. Last year's online mags indicated how it significantly depleted Atari of monetary reserves and probably checked ST development for a long time. I think the best time to evaluate Atari's prospects will be fall '91/spring '92, when they reveal how the ST line will evolve. The June '91 AtariUser stated that Atari Israel will hire 600 workers, mostly comprised of engineers. Oy, with 600 engineers, Atari must be developing some- thing! All the computer companies are struggling thru the recession and Atari seems to be weathering it pretty well. Since becoming downsized, they seem to be more responsive, even with less capital compared to their competitors. I don't know of other top executives participating in online conferences with the public, so it shows Atari is willing to listen. I'm not sure if it would be possible for them to get on an Internet MUD or IRC, but it would be nice. Jack
boblu@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Robert Luneski) (06/04/91)
In article <13309@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> kiki@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jack W. Wine) writes: > >The June '91 AtariUser stated that Atari Israel will hire 600 workers, mostly >comprised of engineers. Oy, with 600 engineers, Atari must be developing some- >thing! > Did you ever hear the one about how many Atari engineers it takes to screw in a light bulb? ____ ____ /\/\/\ Bob Luneski Diamond Back II Support: boblu@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM /\/\/\ \/\/\/ Oregon Research Associates Genie: B.LUNESKI1 \/\/\/ \/\/ 16200 S.W. Pacific Hwy., Suite 162 Phone: (503) 620-4919 \/\/ \/ Tigard, OR 97224 FAX: (503) 639-6182 \/
blackbox@pfunk.hanse.de (Michael Kistenmacher) (06/05/91)
In <42924@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: > >Europe may be a different story, but in the U.S.A, Atari=dead. So we have to hope, that ATARI Europe could go on with it's line, even if ATARI USA has broke down. When looking at the facts, you would believe, that Europe's division could sell ST's even if the mothercompany has gone. But could the mother permit this to it's child. Looking backwards I see, that ATARI Europe always had to ask the US division to do anything new, isn't it ? Bye.....Michael -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | listen to the coolest ! | Michael Kistenmacher / blackbox | | Music from the Galaxy ! | 2000 Hamburg 61 / Schippelsweg 64 | | !!! P-Funk !!! | West Germany / ++ 49 40 552 37 66 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham S Thomas) (06/06/91)
From article <7839@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM>, by boblu@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Robert Luneski): > > Did you ever hear the one about how many Atari engineers it takes to screw in > a light bulb? I thought that registered developers were not allowed to reveal such confidential and commercially sensitive information! :-) Graham -- Graham Thomas, SPRU, Mantell Building, U of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RF, UK Email: grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk Phone: +44 273 678165 Fax: .. 685865
jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (06/08/91)
I moved the file to my Color Computer 3 and used a hexdump utility
to analyze the data and do what I had to do to make it usable.
It worked. In retrospect, I think I turned it into a
"comma separated value" file and read it into MasterPlan. Or I
might have done something else with it. I can't remember. Whatever
I did, I remember it wasn't a particularly difficult problem. But
I laid out the procedure and theory behind what I did so that people
could see that it was the approach that counted and that there were
a number of tools available for the Atari ST or any other computer
that could do the job.
There were a number of very valuable lessons to be learned.
One valuable lesson was that there is NOT an isolated "Atari ST
world" which either survived or died and held us captive. No, not
any more than there is a Color Computer 3 world, the "death" of
which would make my Color Computer 3 "obsolete". Nor were there
specific tools necessary without which I could not get the job done.
Oh, in certainty, I had to have certain classes of capabilities,
such as an ability to look into a file in a Hex dump presentation
or some other way of seeing the ASCII values and binary values,
and possibly some computer language or other tool to modify or
extract data from the file. Also I had to have the ability to
move the data "cleanly" between the two computers. But any number
of tools could do the job, selectable from those broad classes
of tools.
But the magazine I sent it to didn't want it. They *loved*
the article generally, but they wanted me to rewrite it using the
tools available for the Atari ST specifically. They didn't want
people to know that the *approach* was the key. To show that
methodology was so important as to eclipse the brand of computer
you worked on was, well, "too much truth" for their readers.
I agreed to re-write the story. But time being what it was, I
never got it done. It's a pity. They should have printed my
original story. Maybe later people would not have been running
around with their heads cut off moaning the death of the Atari ST.
It's not dead really, but that's another matter. Anyway, I won't
say which of the magazines it was. But they made a choice a long
time ago. They decided to shovel the brown stuff which was
their version of the "truth" about the Atari ST and computers
and software in general. And for the most part, other "fan magazines"
in the computer industry and even in other industries, are about
as bad. And now they, and many others like them are gone. So what
I think I've seen over the years is that people pretty much get what
they deserve.
It's not likely that I'll ever be a publisher in the
professional sense. I've put out "newsletter" in the past, but
I'd really rather be writing or drawing, or even researching,
than doing the paste-ups and all the other details of publishing.
So I'm writing this with the hope that maybe someday someone
will make it into the publishing side, and keep it in mind.
Maybe you don't have to squeeze the truth through some strained
filter after all. Maybe doing so isn't going to help you as
much as you think. Maybe in the long run, your magazine
might even last longer if you aim for higher standards. And maybe
it won't. But then when it's over, at the very least, you will
be able to say, "I told the truth."
--
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomurajimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (06/08/91)
A long while back when the Atari ST was strong I wrote a
magazine article. As is typical for me, it was an unusual article.
I started with a datafile which came from MS-DOS (dBASE III) which
wasn't being accepted by the programs I had available. To do so
I moved the file to my Color Computer 3 and used a hexdump utility
to analyze the data and do what I had to do to make it usable.
It worked. In retrospect, I think I turned it into a
"comma separated value" file and read it into MasterPlan. Or I
might have done something else with it. I can't remember. Whatever
I did, I remember it wasn't a particularly difficult problem. But
I laid out the procedure and theory behind what I did so that people
could see that it was the approach that counted and that there were
a number of tools available for the Atari ST or any other computer
that could do the job.
There were a number of very valuable lessons to be learned.
One valuable lesson was that there is NOT an isolated "Atari ST
world" which either survived or died and held us captive. No, not
any more than there is a Color Computer 3 world, the "death" of
which would make my Color Computer 3 "obsolete". Nor were there
specific tools necessary without which I could not get the job done.
Oh, in certainty, I had to have certain classes of capabilities,
such as an ability to look into a file in a Hex dump presentation
or some other way of seeing the ASCII values and binary values,
and possibly some computer language or other tool to modify or
extract data from the file. Also I had to have the ability to
move the data "cleanly" between the two computers. But any number
of tools could do the job, selectable from those broad classes
of tools.
But the magazine I sent it to didn't want it. They *loved*
the article generally, but they wanted me to rewrite it using the
tools available for the Atari ST specifically. They didn't want
people to know that the *approach* was the key. To show that
methodology was so important as to eclipse the brand of computer
you worked on was, well, "too much truth" for their readers.
I agreed to re-write the story. But time being what it was, I
never got it done. It's a pity. They should have printed my
original story. Maybe later people would not have been running
around with their heads cut off moaning the death of the Atari ST.
It's not dead really, but that's another matter. Anyway, I won't
say which of the magazines it was. But they made a choice a long
time ago. They decided to shovel the brown stuff which was
their version of the "truth" about the Atari ST and computers
and software in general. And for the most part, other "fan magazines"
in the computer industry and even in other industries, are about
as bad. And now they, and many others like them are gone. So what
I think I've seen over the years is that people pretty much get what
they deserve.
It's not likely that I'll ever be a publisher in the
professional sense. I've put out "newsletter" in the past, but
I'd really rather be writing or drawing, or even researching,
than doing the paste-ups and all the other details of publishing.
So I'm writing this with the hope that maybe someday someone
will make it into the publishing side, and keep it in mind.
Maybe you don't have to squeeze the truth through some strained
filter after all. Maybe doing so isn't going to help you as
much as you think. Maybe in the long run, your magazine
might even last longer if you aim for higher standards. And maybe
it won't. But then when it's over, at the very least, you will
be able to say, "I told the truth."
--
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura