howard@cyb-eng.UUCP (Howard Johnson) (11/05/85)
I'm taking the position of devil's advocate in this article. > 1) is .sources.mac useful to mac owners? yes. How many net readers have a Macintosh? I don't. How many net readers who have a Macintosh are able to download software posted to all.sources.mac? How many of *those* readers *use* said software? Don't get me wrong. I believe software exchange (that's legal) is good. I've even seen a news article <225@mplvax.UUCP> stating that software from net.sources.mac was directly useful in the article author's work. Just consider my questions to be "market research." > 2) is shareware worth using? sometimes, yes. Sometimes, if you have the right computer and a way to download the shareware. > 3) should the net carry shareware? not settled. yes & no. > 4) arguments for carrying shareware? > A. useful programs/fonts/DA's for free What is a "DA"? When I see "DA" I think of district attorney. > B. said useful things support the USENET community I admit that I have benefitted from software posted to net.sources. The software in net.sources is by and large posted in "C" (or /bin/sh) source code form. Nearly every Usenet reader can compile C programs and run them. > 5) arguments against? > A. primarily, that the authors of shareware 'stand to gain' (i.e., make > money) from the USENET's freely distributing said shareware. Having shareware authors get money for their software efforts is not in and of itself a problem. There just isn't any established way for shareware authors to cover distribution costs which Usenet sites stand to pay for. > B. possibly others. See net.micro.mac and net.news. Here are some problems with the current method of software distribution employed in all.sources.mac: 1. The long distance voice telephone network is an expensive way to distribute software. 2. The current distribution format (uuencode) consumes a lot of disk space to store the programs, etc. typically found in net.sources.mac. 3. Even if "compress" is used to reduce transmission costs, there is still a substantial use of computer resources required to process the news articles which these programs are wrapped in. 4. Usenet software was designed for textual message exchange. Should the Usenet community decide that it wants the exchange of non-portable software to be a part of it's "charter," then someone should take the "novel" approach of designing software to do it more efficiently. 5. Other networks which carry news (ARPAnet, stargate via WTBS's satellite) *may* have specific limitations for the use of their facilities. > 6) solution: > A. [paraphrased,] moderation would reduce redundancy and > serve to enforce established policy. Agreed. > B. [paraphrased,] discourage shareware payments. This doesn't address *any* of the five points mentioned above, and would probably serve to alienate shareware authors from the Usenet community. One more point: why couldn't certain articles or newsgroups be treated similarly to "third class" paper mail? Usenet sites with expensive phone bills could shuffle magtapes with these articles and not worry that it takes three weeks to propagate them. -- ..!{seismo,topaz,mordor,harvard,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!howard (ordered best to worst); also ..!{ut-ngp,shell}!cyb-eng!howard +1 512 458 6609