Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!langz From: langz@prodigal.Eng.Sun.COM (Lang Zerner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Think of it as NeXT evangelism Message-ID: <2497@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 10 Nov 90 12:13:39 GMT References: <1009@toaster.SFSU.EDU> <1990Nov9.210806.11591@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <1010@toaster.SFSU.EDU> Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Mt. View, CA Lines: 55 In article <1010@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >In article <1990Nov9.210806.11591@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> > saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Kevin Saunders) writes: >> I never broadcast a truly debugged >>version (except to those who sent the $25) > >You're not alone at this. If I pick up an early, buggy shareware >release, odds are I'm going to erase it soon after. I've never been "burned" by shareware and I think it does work (I'm a user, not a shareware publisher). I generally stick with publishers who adhere to the Association of Shareware Professionals standards. This means that the software is not functionally crippled in any way in the shareware version, and that it is sufficiently documented online for you to be able to adequately test it before deciding whether to buy it. Typically you get 21 to 30 days to decide. The way ASP member publishers make it worth your while to register the package is to provide printed manuals (sometimes) and free customer support. Usually registration includes free updates for up to a year. Shareware licenses are just like commercial licenses except that (1) they permit use of the product for 21 days (or wahtever) before purchase is required, and (2) they do not prohibit copying and distribution of the original shareware distribution. Judging by the length of time most of the shareware authors I patronize have been in business, shareware seems to work pretty well. I own two regular commercial packages I use regularly under DOS (Turbo C and the Major BBS), and the rest -- 1-2-3 compatible spreadsheet, communications software, virus scanner and TSR shield, file compression utilities, DOS shell (4DOS), and jillions of others -- is all shareware. I get good technical support when I need it, and of course the software isn't buggy -- I tested it all for a month before I bought it. This is why I can't understand your assertion that shareware is low quality software. In fact, most of it is quite good, and you can certainly find out from the online distribution community which packages are best suited to your application. I have no sympathy for someone who claims to have gotten "stuck with" or "burned by" a buggy shareware product. After a MONTH to test it out? If, after getting the golden opportunity to try before you buy that shareware provides, someone does not make good use of that opportunity and pays for the software without trying it, well, in my opinion they have about as much right to complain as someone who buys a traditionally-published product without reading advertising claims, marketing hype, and reviews (which is the best information you can get if it isn't shareware. Anyway, I've been up to long and this is well on its way to becoming a tirade, so I'll end now by repeating: most shareware products offer good value, good post-purchase support, and egalitarian licensing terms. I can understand why some authors won't choose to publish by this nethod, but I don't understand users who shun it. Be seeing you... --Lang -- langz@prodigal.sun.com 415/594-9268 "Why do you whistle so much?" "Well, it's hardly the sort of thing you can ask someone to do FOR you."