rxcob@minyos.xx.rmit.oz (Owen Baker) (10/11/90)
jdb@bitcave.in-berlin.de (Joern D. Busch) writes: >magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) wrote: >> >> I normally move such programs directly to /dev/null ! >> >> I'm not saying that you shouldn't post your programs if they're small and >> if you don't have the time to write docs for them. >Maybe some of the recent stuff should've never appeared in cbip. >Bill: how about sorting more things out? In fairness to Bill he did warn me (the author of checktd and others) that documentation was preferred as a seperate file and I will do so in future. I think perhaps I would have also created less controversy if I had not decided at the last minute to charge for the utilities!? Please read my previous reply for further discussion but I would AGAIN like to point out that the documentation or instructions provided within the program were all I intended to provide and I cant see why you need more in most cases? Im slightly peeved, but at least some people have liked them and donated $. +-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Owen Baker | Communication Services Unit | | rxcob@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au | RMIT - Victoria University of Technology | | (61) (3) 660-2038 | Melbourne, Victoria, Australia | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) (10/12/90)
In article <5997@minyos.xx.rmit.oz>, Owen Baker writes: >>magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) wrote: >>> >>> I normally move such programs directly to /dev/null ! >>> >>> I'm not saying that you shouldn't post your programs if they're small and >>> if you don't have the time to write docs for them. >I think perhaps I would have also created less >controversy if I had not decided at the last minute to charge for the >utilities!? Yes, certainly you would! What made me a bit angry wasn't the fact that you posted your programs - after all, if you have some programs you want to share with people, you should do so. The fact was just that it was so very obvious that you had "decided at the last minute to charge for them". I should think that a vast majority of users expect much more from a program that costs $20 than from one that's for free. You can possibly accept that a free program lacks documentation. But if a program costs $20, you expect a lot more. And before you say that $20 is so cheap I shouldn't borrow, you should take a look at the shareware market. In the field of shareware, $20 is certainly *not* cheap for a program like yours. Considering what you ususally get for your money when you buy shareware, your programs seem grossly overpriced (said with the reservation that I haven't tried the programs myself, I'm judging from the moderator's posted description of them). >Please read my previous reply for further discussion but I would AGAIN like >to point out that the documentation or instructions provided within the program >were all I intended to provide and I cant see why you need more in most >cases? Programs that are self-documenting with helpscreens and such are very nice, and often that kind of documentation is the only one you need and use. However, I (and I think many people with me) like to know what a program does *before* I run it. How am I even supposed to know that the program is self-documenting if the only "documentation" enclosed (outside of the program) says "A program to do this-or-that. Shareware $20"? The reason for my harsh words "Such programs go directly to /dev/null" is that I've downloaded and unpacked just too many undocumented programs from BBS's and run them, just to find out that they either 1) Do something quite different than what I expected or 2) Have a totally incomprehensible user interface. I'm not implying this is the case with your programs, just that there is no way I can know this without sacrificing a lot of time to find out. >Im slightly peeved, but at least some people have liked them and donated $. And perhaps *they* will be slightly peeved when they find out that they can get a whole set of programs to do the same things as yours, *with* proper documentation, for less than the cost of *one* of yours? Magnus Olsson | \e+ /_ Dept. of Theoretical Physics | \ Z / q University of Lund, Sweden | >----< Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se | / \===== g Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52 | /e- \q
rice@willow23.cray.com (Jonathan Rice) (10/13/90)
In article <9010121034.AA06799@thep.lu.se> magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes: >Programs that are self-documenting with helpscreens and such are very nice, and >often that kind of documentation is the only one you need and use. However, >I (and I think many people with me) like to know what a program does *before* >I run it. > >How am I even supposed to know that the program is self-documenting if >the only "documentation" enclosed (outside of the program) says "A program to >do this-or-that. Shareware $20"? > >The reason for my harsh words "Such programs go directly to /dev/null" is that >I've downloaded and unpacked just too many undocumented programs from BBS's and >run them, just to find out that they either >1) Do something quite different than what I expected >or >2) Have a totally incomprehensible user interface. I'd like to echo this. There are far too many programs in the archives and on c.b.i.p to evaluate each one by trial; and at least for me the transfer from the network to my PC is nontrivial. When, through news or FTP, I get a program on my Sun, the shell script that does the transfer unzoos, unarcs, or unzips the file, looks for documentation, and punts the whole package if there isn't any. If there is documentation, then if it is sketchy, illiterate, or "cute" I assume that the author's other work products are similarly flawed, and delete the package (wish I could automate *that* step). Note that at no time have the files touched a PC, yet only a few remain. Only if the documentation makes me think the package MIGHT survive a run-time evaluation do I bother writing it to a stiffy to take home. Shareware authors expecting to make some money might wish to take Mr. Olsson's attitude, and mine, into account -- we may be in the minority but I wouldn't count on it. -- Jonathan C. Rice | Internet: rice@cray.com Cray Research, Inc. | UUCP: uunet!cray!rice 655F Lone Oak Drive | (612) 683 - 5370 Eagan, MN 55121 |
mcc@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM (Merton Campbell Crockett) (10/15/90)
I must agree that "self-documenting" code does not make a valid product--at any price. Admittedly, I will accept shareware with mediocre documentation if I can find some description of what it is supposed to do--"file manager" is insufficient. An electronic version of marketing glossy is minimum. Like others I have wasted time, FTPing an archived file to a computer at work and Kermiting it home. If I then unpack it and find no documentation, DEL *.*. Back to work and rm *. If you look at the various costs associated with a software product from, say Digital, the bulk of what one is paying for is the documentation and the distribution mechanisms. There are some products where other than the cost of the media the actual software is free. The software development costs are really paid through the annual update service fees. Merton