saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (kevin eric saunders) (01/07/88)
> We look forward to continued support (upgrades!!!) on the net. > >Brian H. Powell Which brings to mind, why in the name of the Net Gods is a for-profit non-shareware software company (THINK) distributing software upgrades across UseNet? Shouldn't this bring on some profound cosmological disturbances, some rumblings from the aether? "I walk upon the Clouds, and look down upon the Sun from a superior Standpoint"--The Socrates of "The Clouds," yeah, the Socrates Bloom don't talk about. "I swish the protractor about thus, and--aha! A Cloak! Our dinner has been procured!" Irritated, kev -- Kevin Eric Saunders ARPA: saunders@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ...!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!saunders
shane@pepe.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker) (01/07/88)
In article <3293@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> saunders@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (kevin eric saunders) writes: >> We look forward to continued support (upgrades!!!) on the net. >> >>Brian H. Powell > > Which brings to mind, why in the name of the Net Gods is a for-profit >non-shareware software company (THINK) distributing software upgrades >across UseNet? Shouldn't this bring on some profound cosmological >disturbances, some rumblings from the aether? > >Kevin Eric Saunders >ARPA: saunders@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu >...!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!saunders The upgrades you are complaining about are FREE upgrades for a product which is sold. As far as I can tell, they are being distributed electronically in order to get bug fixes and small changes (free) to the largest number of people. The patches were posted on CompuServe at least. Just because you can't get free support for the stuff you buy... And before you flame me about my use of the word "free", ask yourself this. Would you complain if THINK was not on the net, and somebody else (like myself) posted the upgrade patch to the net? Shane Looker | "He's dead Jim, shane@pepe.cc.umich.edu | you grab his tricorder, uunet!umix!pepe.cc.umich.edu!shane | I'll get his wallet." Looker@um.cc.umich.edu
clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) (01/08/88)
in article <3293@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (kevin eric saunders) says: > Which brings to mind, why in the name of the Net Gods is a for-profit > non-shareware software company (THINK) distributing software upgrades > across UseNet? > Irritated, > kev Dear kev -- Is it possible you didn't notice that the upgrades were: a) free to all b) of interest to a very significant number of the community Netnews is supported for community benefit. The reason (sole reason, I assure you) why the bean counters haven't turned off the faucet on Usenet so far, is that each part of the community very demonstrably benefits from the expertise and largesse of the other members. Each in their own time. Surely yours will come, if it hasn't. Clive Steward
holland@mips.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (01/08/88)
In article <3293@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (kevin eric saunders) writes: > > We look forward to continued support (upgrades!!!) on the net. > > > >Brian H. Powell > > Which brings to mind, why in the name of the Net Gods is a for-profit > non-shareware software company (THINK) distributing software upgrades > across UseNet? Shouldn't this bring on some profound cosmological > disturbances, some rumblings from the aether? > > Irritated, > Kevin Eric Saunders > ARPA: saunders@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu > ...!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!saunders It seems the important point is that they did not profit by posting the upgrade to the net. I don't see how this is any different from someone providing help or patches for a commercial program. I find it honorable that THINK is passing up the opportunity to profit from an upgrade. I have seen others complain about how companies "profit from fixing bugs". Maybe they'll set a trend... Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
blm@cxsea.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (01/10/88)
Clive Steward (clive@drutx.ATT.COM) writes: |in article <3293@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (kevin eric saunders) says: |> Which brings to mind, why in the name of the Net Gods is a for-profit |> non-shareware software company (THINK) distributing software upgrades |> across UseNet? |> Irritated, |> kev |Is it possible you didn't notice that the upgrades were: | a) free to all | b) of interest to a very significant number of the community Is it possible you didn't notice that the upgrades were: a) NOT free to all. Someone's paying phone bills, for disk space, CPU cycles, a maintenance person's time, etc. Just because you don't have to send in a check doesn't mean that no one is paying for the distribution of the upgrades. b) Of interest to a very INsignificant number of the USENET community. The last readership reports show that the readership of comp.binaries.mac is 4.9%. Assuming even half of the Mac people own Lightspeed C, the upgrades are of value to only 2.5% of the Usenet community. I wonder how many sites have the upgrades taking up disk space, connection time, and CPU cycles, when they are of absolutely no use to anyone at that site. I know that's the case at my site. Note that I'm not saying the upgrades shouldn't have been posted. I'm just saying that posting something isn't free, someone pays for it, and that with so many Usenet reader's with so many varied interests, any one posting would have to be pretty amazing to be of interest to 10% or more of the people reading Usenet. -- Brian L. Matthews "A power tool is not a toy. ...{mnetor,uw-beaver!ssc-vax}!cxsea!blm Unix is a power tool." +1 206 251 6811 Computer X Inc. - a division of Motorola New Enterprises
isle@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Ken Hancock) (01/11/88)
>In article <3293@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (kevin eric saunders) writes: >> Which brings to mind, why in the name of the Net Gods is a for-profit >> non-shareware software company (THINK) distributing software upgrades >> across UseNet? Shouldn't this bring on some profound cosmological >> disturbances, some rumblings from the aether? The only profit that THINK is reaping by distributing upgrade patches through Usenet (i.e., free of charge, quickly, and easily available), is my esteem for their company and those like it. I wish every company could be as dedicated as THINK is in providing the most up to date support for their product as they do. What I don't understand is how anyone could object to this... Ken -- Ken Hancock UUCP: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu BITNET: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu DISCLAIMER: If people weren't so sue-happy, I wouldn't need one!
clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) (01/12/88)
in article <2319@cxsea.UUCP>, blm@cxsea.UUCP (Brian Matthews) says: > the upgrades are of value to only 2.5% of the Usenet community. Actually, any item on usenet that is of direct interest to 2.5% of the total community is probably hitting an unusually large cross-section, and therefore very worthwhile. Consider how much of a newspaper you read. Or how many talk/soc/net/rec distribution articles, or even what percentage of those under comp. I look at most Unix sources, but use very few. I'm very glad for those I do use, and that atari and ibm'ers can get their needs attended to as well as mac'ers. I'm sure most of us feel the same way. The world isn't only mainframes or Unix engines; PC's are a very common workday adjunct, and so certainly deserve the support they get here, from a business viewpoint. Having the best software and the notes for using it are essential. That's why businesses and government adjuncts (schools fit both) haven't pulled the plug long ago. Usenet is useful. It's simple.