garym@cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net (Gary Murphy) (05/02/91)
I think the same rule applies here as applies to going to a jazz concert (or any other concert for that matter): If you don't like what the author has so painstakingly produced, don't use it. As a self-confessed shareware addict, I average at least a megabyte a week in downloaded programs, some just to see what they do, but most with at least some intention of applying the program to some problem. True to the old axiom that 90% of anything is junk, I generally find I delete the bulk of these from my disk within hours of downloading them and a large percent of the others will go after a few days of tests --- that IS the purpose of shareware: To allow the consumer to verify that the software is what they want BEFORE they buy. Now if the product is crippled, how am I to know it will do the job? And my results? Odd results, indeed. I _have_ consciously rejected software solely for excessive nagging, regardless of utility (such as with the otherwise possibly useful pctag package) and for cripplings (I was so sad to find the recent incarnations of WSSINDEX to be too crippled to test), but even with the remaining (admittedly majority) programs, I find more and more that the best conceived, best implemented and best supported programs are FREE. Someone in marketting, please explain this to me! I get 'instant' support via e-mail, usually full source code and at worst the only restriction is a GNU-ish copylefting. Urging the consumer to pay for something they have obtained anonymously for free is a tricky business, but how else can a programmer survive? As a shareware author, my approach was (a) write a program I myself needed and (b) never expect to see a cent --- needless to say, I didn't quit my day job! There are other approaches: some authors have a pyramid-scheme whereby any copies registered are tagged and then, if a new registration comes in showing it to have been copied from the first one, the registered owner of the first one gets a commission on the sale. Rather than bitch on about whether Miles should stay away from keyboards or whether Madonna can still sing anything from her first albumn, I think it would be more productive if we accept new software for what it is, take-it-or-leave-it, and if we want a discussion ... why not try to come up with an ALTERNATIVE scheme? -- o| Gary Murphy |o |------------------------------------------------------------------------| o| uunet!mitel!cunews!cognos!garym garym%cognos.uucp@ccs.carlton.ca |o | Cognos Inc. P.O. Box 9707 Ottawa K1G 3N3 (613) 738-1338 x5537 | o| "There are many things which do not concern the process" - Joan of Arc |o
wjin@csun10.cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) (05/02/91)
Let us be generous to the shareware writers (Well, in fact, they are generous to share their programs). 1PASS is just the first version. I also found that 1PASS is not really a matured program but I think that it is still useful. I exepect that the author would release 1PASS2 which might be more useful. 'Junk' is relative. To me, Window 3.0 ($99 paid) is a junk. I don't use it. On the other hand, EmTeX (a free typsetting tool TeX ported to DOS by E.Matt) is the most valuable program to me. Also, Some of the people who use McWrite intensively, might feel that EmTeX is a junk. I think that almost sharewares are useful in some particular situations, for some particular users. If there is one thing that I would like to ask shareware programmers, it would be that when they announce/upload their programs they would document clearly (and hopefully shortly) what it is, what it does, how, and why, for whom, when it is useful. ____ ____ ____ ____________________________________________________________ | | | | | | Woochang Jin (wjin@cs.uh.edu) Office - PGH574, PGH592 | | | |__| | Grad, System Administration. Wed,Fri: 9:00-1:00 | | | | Department of Computer Science 713-749-1748 (office) \ |---| |--| | University of Houston 713-747-2130 (home) \____/|__| |__| ____________________________________________________________
dsims@uceng.UC.EDU (david l sims) (05/02/91)
garym@cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net (Gary Murphy) writes: >I think the same rule applies here as applies to going to a jazz >concert (or any other concert for that matter): If you don't like >what the author has so painstakingly produced, don't use it. [confessions of a shareware junkie deleted] >Now if the product is crippled, how am I to know it will do the job? It's my turn to throw in my two cents. I must admit that I am tired of people saying how much they hate "crippleware" or "beggarware" or "guiltware". Have you heard of the phrase "beggars can't be choosers?" Where else do you get _essentially_ free software? Why aren't you slamming Microsoft because one of thier "working models" isn't the full-blown program. Why, it's XXX-WARE! I think I'll call it TEMPT-WARE. Why that darned Bill Gates! He sent me TEMPT-WARE! When I recently bought Borland C++, how was I to know it did the job? I depended on Borland's reputation and reviewers' comments. After purchasing it, I have mixed feelings. I wish the BC++ IDE was actually a Windows app. Anyway, the point is, I took a chance. I'd rather not have to take a chance, but I did since Borland hasn't yet become enlightened to the advantages of shareware :-). >Rather than bitch on about whether Miles should stay away from keyboards >or whether Madonna can still sing anything from her first albumn, I >think it would be more productive if we accept new software for what it >is, take-it-or-leave-it, and if we want a discussion ... why not try to >come up with an ALTERNATIVE scheme? I'm for the discussion of an ALTERNATIVE scheme. I actually tried it once. I wrote a BBS that allowed DOS programs to be run over the modem. The caller could try out the program, but he couldn't get his hands on it. It was a bit slow in that the ANSI escape sequences I used would be too slow if there were windows (scrolling regions) involved. For programs that made heavy use of windows, it was too impractical. After running a demo and obtaining some literature on a piece of software, the caller could order it online. BTW, I still have all the C/8086 assembler code. I think I'll release it as ...TEMPT-WARE!!! Any comments on this scheme or other ALTERNATIVE schemes? David Sims dsims@uceng.uc.edu
npw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Nicholas Wilt) (05/03/91)
In article <8263@uceng.UC.EDU> dsims@uceng.UC.EDU (david l sims) writes: >literature on a piece of software, the caller could order it online. BTW, I >still have all the C/8086 assembler code. I think I'll release it as >...TEMPT-WARE!!! > >Any comments on this scheme or other ALTERNATIVE schemes? Sounds similar to the common scheme for games and libraries--freely distribute objects and executables, sell the source. Since a library is much more useful with source, but the potential user can evaluate its performance before buying, this seems like a good approach for shareware authors willing to part with source. > >David Sims >dsims@uceng.uc.edu --Nick npw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu