Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!utgard!chris
From: chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: WinComm Demo  What would you want?
Summary: wincomm internet
Keywords: wincomm internet
Message-ID: <1990Oct31.091911.24048@utgard.uucp>
Date: 31 Oct 90 20:19:36 GMT
References: <1990Oct26.220436.5899@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1990Oct27.020036.24200@cs.uoregon.edu> <9349@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <1990Oct30.123655.15206@utgard.uucp> <9442@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: QMA, Inc., Rancho Cordova, California
Lines: 160
FollowupTo: comp.windows.ms
ReplyTo: chris@utgard.UUCP (Chris Anderson)

In article <9442@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Jason Merrill) writes:
>In article <1990Oct30.123655.15206@utgard.uucp> chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) writes:
>Yes, it is.  But I was referring to a specific cost, as with Usenet; calling
>up UUNET costs a specific amount of money for the time you are on.  There is
>no such quantitative cost for Ethernet.  And does anyone know whether the
>major backbones of the Internet are close to a major loss of efficiency?
>The local network here is, but that's largely the fault of NFS.

Give me a break.  What do you think the medium is?  Wind?  The Internet,
like most wide area networks, uses data paths like T1 to operate.  Do
you think that these are free?  A T1 line, depending on the speed, can
run from $5000.00 a month to over $50,000.  That's a direct cost.  As is
the equipment, software, management time, etc. necessary to keep it 
running.  None of these things are cheap.  Quantitative cost?  Most of
it is funded by gov't money.  That's why universities can get onto it
with no fees other than the ones mentioned above.  For anybody else,
the fees are considerable.  So, you have two levels of costs: direct
costs necessary to keep the connections running, and indirect costs 
via taxes.

>>The users didn't ask for wincomm to be made available, the reps of
>>Synappsys (sp?) did that on their own.  So in what way is the user
>>responsible for that?
>
>In that the user is downloading it.  Synappsys isn't forcing anyone to look
>at their product, they're just making it possible.

When I buy a magazine, there are ads in it.  I didn't ask for them to
be there, but there they are.  I'm not being forced to look at them,
it's just possible.  The difference is that the company *bought* the
ad.  Wincomm didn't.  Pure and simple.

>It's the distribution of information.  I find software demos useful; don't
>you?  Also, Synappsys is asking for suggestions for future releases.  They
>wouldn't be able to get them nearly as quickly if they only had the input of
>customers; I've never called up Microsoft to make a suggestion for the next
>version of Windows.  Have you?

Yes I find software demos useful.  So what?  The Internet was not
formed to distribute *any and all* information, just that which is
necessary to research.  Wincomm doesn't fall into that category.  And
the information that they gather will be used for them to make a 
better product, that they will then have a better chance of *selling*.
Again, Syn. wins at the expense of others.

>>And, when you get your ethernet card, you *won't* be supporting
>>the Ethernet.  But your tuition that you payed *will* be.  As well
>>as any other user fees that are charged at your school for computer
>>access.
>
>They will be supporting the school's connection to the Ethernet.  They won't
>be supporting the Ethernet in GENERAL.  

The _Internet_ requires software, hardware, etc. that the school has
to *buy*.  And a data line capable of handling the traffic.  And the
computers necessary to allow students to access the network.  That's
what your fees (in part) are going to.  That's the cost of a network
connection for a school.  Otherwise, yes, you are right.  And this is
something that isn't quite fair:  schools get to use the Internet 
without the fees that the rest of us pay.

>The only benefit a node gives to the world is the utility of the information
>it distributes!  This is true of my node (do you find this post useful?),
>FTP sites such as cica (do you find it useful?) and anything else.  The
>great benefit of the Internet is the easy distribution of information.

Absolutely.  I agree.  But that's not the *purpose* of the Internet. 
I, too, dream of a day when *everyone* will have a connection to a 
network.  I hope that it will be in the same sense of fair play and
responsibility that is currently enjoyed by us.  I fear that it won't
be.  Censorship is too easy.  But that's not what we're arguing about.

>Certainly not everything that comes out is useful.  I certainly don't have a
>use for everything on Simtel20, but I consider its presence to be useful,
>if nothing else than for the programs that I DO want from there.  Similarly,
>you may not have a use for the Wincomm demo, BUT I DO!  Who are you, or
>anyone else, to determine what is useful for everyone?  That smacks of
>censorship.  True, the purpose of the Internet is research, as you say.  But
>how is a demo less appropriate than shareware?  If we're already breaking
>the rules, what criteria are left?

The point I'm trying to make is that *you* *are* *not* *the* *reason* 
*the* *Internet* *exists*.  You are enjoying a benefit, no more.  At
this particular point in history, these benefits are available.  They
may not be in the near future.  In any case, these benefits are not,
and should not, be available for commercial use.  I don't believe that
shareware is appropriate use either.  But it's less blatant.  Syn. is
enjoying free advertising and distribution at the expense of others.
*That's* blatant.

>If Synappsys is using someone else's link to distribute the demo, they are
>only misusing that site's resources, not anyone else's.  And I don't think
>it's even a waste of that site's resources.  It is up to the SITE to decide
>that.

It's up to the site to determine what is appropriate to use it's
resources for, true.  But when they make something available for
FTP transfer, then they have to conform to the Internet rules.  That's
why the X rated gifs are disappearing.  Because they do not conform
to the "acceptable use" policy of the Internet.  Neither does wincomm.

>>Synappsys, on the other hand, has *not* supported the Internet or
>>it's members in any way.  They used it's resources for their own 
>>ends.  This is akin to theft.
>
>Aren't shareware authors doing the same thing?  Perhaps shareware makes its
>way onto the net via a BBS, so the author isn't posting it directly.  Would
>this make it more valid for Wincomm to be posted by someone who just found
>it on a local BBS, rather than someone in Synappsys' employ?  I don't see it
>that way.

Yes, they are.  And no, it wouldn't make it more acceptable.  I 
don't think shareware should be on the net.

>Yes, it is the same.  "Software archives are tolerated because of the
>benefits they bring to the member of the Internet," and is this less true
>for demos than for shareware?  How do you feel about nagware?  Is that less
>valid?

See above.  Note that *free* software *does* fall under the charter
of the Internet.  There is a lot of wonderful software that is
absolutely free.  And it has it's place on the net.


>But as you just said, software archives such as cica are "directly against the
>policy of the Internet" too.  I feel that software demos have just as much
>of a place on the net as shareware, and I sincerely hope that this uproar
>will not discourage other companies from distributing demos via the net.  I
>found the Wincomm demo useful.  I also found the Pubtech software demo on
>cica useful; I was able to decide from it that I wanted to buy Batchworks,
>but that the other products didn't interest me.

That's why companies mail demo disks, that's why they make brochures.
In both of those cases they paid for the medium and transport of their
product from them to you.  If this practice of putting demos on the
net becomes more widespread, then it will be shut down.  The sad 
thing is that it's possible that *all* software archives may be shut
down as a result.  I refer you to the discussion going on in news.admin
concerning the possibility of IBM "bringing Fortune 500 management to
the anarchic Internet".  Paraphrased, but the intent is the same.

>And why did this only erupt over the Wincomm demo, and not the Pubtech?
>Because Wincomm had a higher profile?  Because Butch made himself available
>for comments?

Definitely.  I recognize that Synappsys was trying to make a better 
product, that they fixed bugs quickly, that they were soliciting advice
from their users.  These are all traits to be commended.  They sound
like a good software company.  I wish that more companies did the same.
It's their methods that I'm questioning.  I hope that they just
weren't aware of what they were doing, and that they will desist in
the future.  

Chris

-- 
| Chris Anderson                                                       |
| QMA, Inc.                     email : {csusac,sactoh0}!utgard!chris  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| My employer never listens to me, so why should he care what I say?   |