taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) (03/10/90)
Larry Taborek, in a different discussion chain, sums up the shareware discussion in this group nicely by commenting that: > I think that we could give everyone a solution that they could > live with if we had a shareware news group. In that way sites > that didn't want to carry it wouldn't have to, and sites that > want shareware would receive it (or arrange to receive it). This makes a heck of a lot of sense to me; and yes, I am the person who pays the phone bills for my complete Usenet feed of all groups (including gnu.* groups, though I don't read them or endorse their politics). I propose that we try to work out a new heirarchy for all shareware type articles, either source, binaries, or ?? Further, if we're going to the trouble of doing it for Unix programs, I suggest that we also offer the distribution media for DOS, Macintosh, and &c programs too. I suggest the name "shareware.*" which, though it's rather long, leaves no question about the purpose of the heirarchy, and also allows, since it's a new tree, us to organize things like: shareware.sources.unix shareware.sources.msdos shareware.binaries.mac shareware.patches.unix shareware.politics shareware.wanted and so on. I mean, if you don't want to have shareware on your machine, you can now easily avoid it by having "!shareware.*" in your "sys" file. Further, if you really want it, I'm sure that some sites like UUNET will pick it up and feed it to those sites willing to pay the phone connections... What do people think? Can we hack out some reasonable set of groups and then make an intelligent, rational, and acceptable proposal to 'news.groups' requesting the new heirarchy?? Remember we do have the prior examples of the "gnu", "biz" and "alt" heirarchies too... Yours for structured anarchy, -- Dave Taylor Intuitive Systems Mountain View, California taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) (03/13/90)
In article <514@limbo.Intuitive.Com>, taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) writes:
- I suggest the name "shareware.*" which, though it's rather long,
- leaves no question about the purpose of the heirarchy, and also allows,
- since it's a new tree, us to organize things like:
-
- shareware.sources.unix
- shareware.sources.msdos
[ stuff deleted ]
- What do people think? Can we hack out some reasonable set of groups
- and then make an intelligent, rational, and acceptable proposal to
- 'news.groups' requesting the new heirarchy?? Remember we do have the
- prior examples of the "gnu", "biz" and "alt" heirarchies too...
Aha! Since shareware is a money-making proposition (at least in
theory), it seems clear that the hierarchy Dave proposes should be
under "biz". biz is an existing hierarchy for for-profit-oriented
postings.
--
Bob Weissman
Internet: bob@omni.com
UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,sgi,tekbspa,uunet}!omni!bobbstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (03/15/90)
The problem is that after so many people reported that they felt no need to respect shareware posted to a net, and others report particularly bad registration response from USENET, I doubt there is much use for a shareware hierarchy. Shareware authors won't want to see their stuff posted there, and some have said they would have to put rulings on their shareware to forbid it. Which cuts Unix out of the shareware market. A good majority of the responses to that recent poll said they like the current system -- post shareware, but with restrictions. That's what we have now, as all source/binary groups on USENET proper are moderated. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
root@polari.UUCP (The Super User) (03/16/90)
Brad: The majority of responses said "No shareware posting on the network". Every sysadmin who identified themselves as a sysadmin said "no shareware on the network". The second most popular view was "Post shareware to another group" -- 23 out of 40 said "post it to biz.shareware". "..A good majority..." could lead people into believing that there was substantial support for usenet on the network -- when the reading I made from the data was "2/3rds of the respondents either do not want shareware on the network at all, or if it is allowed, do not want it in the core comp groups, but want it segragated to a biz or shareware heirarchy." 80 out of 120 said that.
dewey@sequoia.execu.com (Dewey Henize) (03/16/90)
In article <1376@polari.UUCP> root@.UUCP (The Super User) writes: ] ] Brad: The majority of responses said "No shareware posting on the network". ]Every sysadmin who identified themselves as a sysadmin said "no shareware ]on the network". The second most popular view was "Post shareware to ]another group" -- 23 out of 40 said "post it to biz.shareware". ] ] "..A good majority..." could lead people into believing that there was ]substantial support for usenet on the network -- when the reading I made ]from the data was "2/3rds of the respondents either do not want shareware ]on the network at all, or if it is allowed, do not want it in the core ]comp groups, but want it segragated to a biz or shareware heirarchy." ] 80 out of 120 said that. My god, do you handle your users with such disregard to what is SAID? The MAJORITY did not say "No shareware posting on the network". According to what you even posted, the majority would take it as is or in a separate group. That's not "No shareware posting on the network". Can you handle that? Gee, guess I'm not a sysadmin - or too subtle for you. I said that root didn't impress those of us with root on lots of systems - but I sure as ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <- your clue hell did not say "no shareware on the network". I said I thought the whole controversy was foolish (harsher words) and that those who objected could push for a separate group if they didn't want it. Now, if you already KNOW how you want something to come out, you twist what people say and throw a few 'mistruths' in the blend and hope no one catches you. Your results were: No, it should not be allowed: 45 Yes, it should be allowed with restrictions: 40 Yes, it should be allowed: 32 Unclear: 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- Total 120 From that, assuming its correct, 37% said no. That's not a majority any way you look at it. Now, you blithly added in the 'restrictions' group as 'no', yet go on with these quotes: Shareware should be in comp.sys.*.sharware (11) Shareware should have subject line stating shareware (5) Shareware sources OK, but not binary (5) ... Moderated newsgroup for announcements of shareware + maillist (2) Shareware only in moderated groups to prevent shareware floods (1) None of those comments translates into "No shareware posting on the network" - unless of course the person counting the poll has already decided what to claim as the output of the poll. You could, if you shrink down the usual definition of 'the network' claim that the line: Shareware should be in biz.* not in comp,misc,etc group. (23) limits it, but only if you throw out all the groups other than the 'big 7'. Is THAT your claim? This is the kind of thing that gives 'polls' a bad name. To make it quite clear... I am a sysadmin. Is that identification enough? I don't care if shareware is in mainstream groups or subgroups or in the biz heirarchy. I DO care when someone misrepresents others. Especially when one being misrepresented is me. Don't waste time, yours or others, with polls if you're going to twist the results. You think shareware costs? Try transmitting falsehoods - and in a mainstream group at that. How nice. Dewey Henize System and Network Administrator | <- for those that need it. doesn't News Administrator. Senior DP Staff| <- impress me, but some need titles. Execucom Systems Corp news sites execu.execu.com and sequoia.execu.com -- | Execucom and I often have different ideas. THESE are mine, ok? Ok. | | dewey@execu.com or uunet!sequoia!dewey | |Don't reword the question into such generality that it appears absurd, that's| |a puerile trick. -Barry Shein | But this IS Usenet!! - me |
root@polari.UUCP (The Super User) (03/16/90)
So take the raw data and publish your findings. I'll mail it to you. The comments about "yes, but with restrictions" were more along the lines of "jeez, if it's GOTTA BE on the network, it should be a in a group that I don't have to carry. " Period. Sure, there's some interpretations of this, but that's closer (in my opinion) to a NO than to a YES. So yea, I'm lumping the "no", and "yes with restrictions into one. Your email about my posting as root, funny enough, wasn't the one I was responding to, though I used a couple of your words. Check it out for yourself. Anyways, I'm hardly an unbiased person in this. So why don't you do a workup on the raw data and publish it as a disinterested party? In other words, if you're unhappy with what I posted, I'll flood your mailbox and let you do the work. Fair enough?