Xref: utzoo news.groups:4763 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:476
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ihnp4!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: What to do about binaries
Message-ID: <6018@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 88 23:07:33 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 68

In article  <463@wpg.UUCP> russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) had 
>suggested that it might be appropriate to ban shareware postings 
>on usenet.  
>
>In article <6010@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David 
>Gudeman) took issue with Mr. Brunow's article and posted a truly 
>cleverless diatribe claiming over and over again that Mr. Brunow 
>was "stupid". 
>
>Mr. Gudeman adamantly concluded:
>
>> We're not going to ban shareware.  Post away, it's a free net, even
>> though there are some like you who don't want it to be.
>
>Mr. Gudeman is wrong, of course.  As most people know, it's not a free 
>net... although it would appear from Gudeman's posting that he doesn't 
>contribute to the high cost of its upkeep.

It was obvious from my wording that I was using "free" in the sense of
"unconstrained", not "without cost".  I also knew when I wrote it that
some people would deliberately misread it.  You are right, by the way,
I don't pay any of the net costs, except through taxes.  If I did, I
might not carry binaries or any of the talk groups, and possibly not a
lot of the technical groups.  If someone wants to cut off binaries
because they are costing that person money, I not only wouldn't
protest, I wouldn't feel it was any of my business.  What _I_ don't
like is someone who spends his time trying to talk others into not
carrying binaries.  It's none of his business.

>  And, while it may be true 
>that Mr. Gudeman is not going to ban shareware (how magnanimous of him), 
>it remains to be seen whether shareware (not to mention ibm.binaries)
>will continue to be propagated through unix sites if net volume continues 
>to increase. 

I suspect they will drop a lot of other things first.

>Many of us have held legitimate concerns for quite some time that 
>shareware publishers (I can't say whether Mr. Gudeman is included in 
>their number -- although his vehemence suggests that he may have an ax 
>to grind) are taking advantage of the net to promote their products
>at the expense of others.

I'm not a shareware publisher.  I _have_ written and distributed
some public domain sources.  I don't actually like the shareware idea
much, but I like freedom.  And I don't like busybodies trying to
restrict my freedom.  _That_ is the axe I have to grind.  And
shareware publishers are not using the net just to promote their
products, but to distribute them.  A lot of us are glad to see them.
PICNIX has made MSDOS usable for me.

>... Now, Mr.  Gudeman, go ahead and tell everybody how stupid I am!
>If you need inspiration, try looking in the mirror.  ;-) 

Sheesh.  Talk about cleverless.  I actually, I've been told I look
quite intelligent (high forehead, beard, glasses :-).  Anyway, I don't
call people stupid until they prove it to my satisfaction.  If you
read the article by Brunnow and know anything about shareware and
binaries, you will have to agree that his article was at least not
very well thought out.

Rereading my response to Brunow in the cooler light of morning, I'll
admit it was a little harsh.  But when the same person keeps
publishing the same misinformation, I get a little irritated.  I also
would like to know why the guy hates binaries so much.  If they are
costing Chuck Brunow money why doesn't he just stop carrying binaries
and shutup?