From: gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn)
Subject: Re: Open letter to NextDevelopers (long)(Flamebait)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:53:51 GMT

effo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens) writes:
> First of all, this crap doesn't belong anywhere but c.s.n.advocacy, 
> so I posted it here.

While I disagree with the use of the word "crap" to describe the original  
article, I do agree that any article which describes itself as "Flamebait"  
should have follow-ups sent to csn.advocacy.

> In comp.sys.next.misc 
> sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) wrote:
> 
> >You have at most three minutes of my time to show me that  
> >a program is useful.  If it isn't, then it's gone.
> 
> This doesn't agree with your complaint about some demo programs not
> giving enough time (e.g., EquationBuilder and Communicae).  And since
> there are not that many programs for anything one might want to do on
> a NeXT, why are you limiting yourself to such a brief glimpse of the
> program?  How can you verify any of FrameMaker's powerful features in
> three minutes, even with the guided demo?

You're mixing up two different roles here.  Sherwood is a systems  
administrator who is trying to decide whether to put some demo program in  
his /Demos folder.  He is not evaluating the package for purchase, he's  
evaluating the demo.  He wants to see if the demo package is interesting  
enough that his users will look at it, and *they* will evaluate the package  
for purchase.

And while *they* are evaluating the package for purchase, *he* doesn't want  
them coming to him about some demo package.  It has to run itself, without  
hassling the users.

> Also, most programs have such limited scope (such as EqB) that the
> intent of the program is graspable in a few minutes (if not just by
> looking at the name of the product).

The point is not whether the person can guess the *intent* of the package,  
the point is to evaluate how well the package meets that intent.

> > Diagram in demo mode is usable.  Not very, because you can't save, but  
> > you could make a quick and dirty illustration, and cut and paste it to
> > another  
> 
> This is an outright ridiculous expectation for a demo.  It's not a useful
> demo because it cannot *save*?  Get real.

Um, you're so convinced that his article is flamebait that you're not  
reading it carefully enough.  He specifically said that the Diagram demo  
*-WAS-* useful.

> >	FrameMaker had a demo mode that you were never sure if it had 
> > saved, but it could be used.  At least you could really run it
> > through the wringer.
> 
> That is a nice demo, but you really should get your mind off of saving
> information from a demo program. 

Again, I believe you've misread his comment.  He's saying that a user could  
really demo Framemaker, even though the save feature was disabled.  This is  
a good demo (for the Framemaker package, some other package might need some  
other limitations).

> You certainly do expect programs to be free.  You made a complaint on
> how a demo program wouldn't save your work.

He never made such a complaint.
> > Finally, don't post things as packages.  Anyone clever enough to 
> > ftp is smart enough to run compress and tar.
> 
> Statements like this are always disproved.  I'd claim that someone
> could have used some NeXTSTEP-based FTP front-end and not had Opener
> to use.  Or someone didn't know to set their FTP mode to binary (or
> image) when retreiving the compressed or tar'ed file.

I'll have to agree with you (and disagree with Sherwood) on this.  I think  
packages are perfectly fine.  I'm "smart enough" to do run compress and tar  
by hand, but that doesn't mean I *want* to.  All I ever do with tar or tar.Z  
files is double-click on them and let Opener.app handle the expansion.  It  
isn't all that much different for me to double-click on a package file.  I  
(personally) would prefer package files, though I must admit either package  
or plain tar files are fine with me.

Two notes on package files though:
1) Let me install it where I want to install it.  Don't hardwire ~/Apps or
   any other directory name.
2) Provide two packages, one for the application and the other for the
   documentation.  The way Stone Design splits things up for Create and
   Dataphile is exactly what I want.  I certainly have no intention of
   installing documentation files in /LocalApps (it'd only slow things
   down) when I have a perfectly good /LocalLibrary/Documentation
   folder.

Other than that, I like packages.

> Overall, I'd say your views on demo programs are *way* off and a
> couple of programs even conflict with your three minute demo time
> limit.  Given your obvious lack of vision of the developer's point of
> view (and wish to make money off their work), I seriously doubt you
> administrate NeXTs in the way you claim you do.

I do not understand your vitriolic response to the original article.  My  
first reaction to that article was that I didn't understand why he  
considered it flamebait.  95% of it sounded perfectly reasonable to me, as  
another systems administrator.  I'm also the president of a NeXT users  
group, for whatever that's worth.  I *also* do technical support for  
NeXTstations for the Product Center here at RPI, which is a hub school for  
NeXT educational offerings.  If you want to call me an idiot, feel free, but  
don't be surprised if I never happen to mention your products to anyone.

I'd advise you to wake up and listen a little closer.  You can call Sherwood  
(and other systems adminstrators, like me) uncaring idiots if you like, but  
whatever products come in *-stupid-* demonstration packages will simply get  
tossed in the trash.  There are enough things which I have to do that I  
don't have time to play around with everyone's demo.  While you're sitting  
smug in the righteousness of your ways (as may any programmers with similar  
attitudes), some one else will be give the disk space on /Demo directories  
everywhere.

I also have no intention of cheating any programmers out of a decent living  
(assuming they write a decent program).  I'm quite willing to get demo  
programs which are crippled to some extent, or otherwise setup to encourage  
users to spend the money to get the real thing.  I say that as a systems  
programmer (I've spent most of the last 15 years writing programs, not  
taking things off FTP sites).  That does not change the fact that a demo  
package must give the user a good feel for the package.  They want to know  
that the package is really worth buying before spending the $$$ on it.   
There are too many packages out there which *sound* really good, and yet in  
practice they are utterly abysmal.

If you (the generic programmer, not you personally) want to make a living  
out of programming, I'd suggest you take the above fact to heart.  You must  
come up with a reasonable demo.  What constitutes "reasonable" will  
obviously be different for different products, but whatever you do it must  
be reasonable.  If it's not going to be reasonable (to the *user*, not to  
*you*), then you might as well save yourself the time it takes to produce  
the demo package, because 75% of the people who see the demo will just toss  
it out.

And before you tell me that I'm just trying to steal software, please note  
that according to my records (which are kept in a Dataphile database), I've  
spent over $2,200 on software for my NeXTstation.  And that includes a  
number of packages sold at educational discounts.  I don't mind paying for  
an application once I've determined that it does a useful job for me, but I  
don't have the time to screw around with stupid or user-hostile demos.  This  
is a fact, it is not something which is up for debate.  Make your own  
decisions as you see fit.

--
Garance Alistair Drosehn     =     gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer            (handles NeXT-type mail)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;           Troy NY    USA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy