Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!ain
From: ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Problems with "USENET Seal of Approval"
Message-ID: <2638@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 88 00:17:55 GMT
References: <503@cunixc.columbia.edu> <1770@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White)
Distribution: na
Organization: PUCC Land, USA
Lines: 28

In article <1770@sugar.UUCP> karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:
>I don't think these ad hoc usenet projects are stable enough in the long 
>term to support something like this.

   I disagree.. moderation is pretty stable despite the fact that it is
usenet based and the moderators change... in fact, it is probably even
*more* stable to the outside now because we are a group rather than a single
person.
   So, I think this *can* work, but it may require some fairly dedicated
people to get it started... but at least it is being started as a group
project rather than one person trying to do it all.

>Further, what incentive does a software vendor have to get their products
>approved?  None, unless software purchasers demand it (and they probably
>won't, at least not on their own)

   True, but if the requirememnts are made well known, it might become a
point that the purchasers use when selecting software.. I know that a rating
that says if a program will multitask, or runs with extended memory would
have some bearing when *I* decide to purchase a piece of software.

>"Weekends were made for programming."  -me

   :-)

-- Pat White
ARPA/UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain  BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM  PHONE: (317) 743-8421
U.S.  Mail:  320 Brown St. apt. 406,    West Lafayette, IN 47906