Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <15206@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 26 Feb 90 19:04:51 GMT
References: <1235@utoday.UUCP> <17923@rpp386.cactus.org> <15166@bfmny0.UU.NET> <34268@watmath.waterloo.edu> <15179@bfmny0.UU.NET> <1268@utoday.UUCP> <15191@bfmny0.UU.NET> <1288@utoday.UUCP> <1990Feb26.132435.19063@robohack.UUCP> <1990Feb26.143410.5636@druid.uucp>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Lines: 18

If Usenet (or USENET -- not UseNet or USENet or UsEnEt you heathen;
rtfm) is relatively unproductive as a registration cash-cow for
shareware postings, it's probably because people don't EXPECT to find
shareware here; why should they, since common sense suggests IT DOESN'T
BELONG HERE!

Still, authors like Ross "I Conduct Mail-Type Conversations In News
Articles, Don't You?" Greenberg can hardly claim it's a BAD channel,
since after one little upload the entire net patiently does the
remaining 99% of the commercial distribution work, at its own expense.
With an implicit subsidy like this, any return at all is worth it -- to
the author that is.

The bottom line is, BBS's and commercial timesharing services ALREADY
exist.  Usenet cannot and should not try to emulate them.
-- 
To have a horror of the bourgeois   (\(    Tom Neff
is bourgeois. -- Jules Renard        )\)   tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET