From: gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn)
Subject: Re: Let's complain to the developers and not USENET
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:31:31 GMT

jeffo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens) writes:
> gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> If the package fills a need (equation building for EqB, for instance),
> and his users say they want to make equations, why wouldn't he install
> the demo?

Disk space.  Time.  Effort.  Hassle.

Have you installed every demo and "neat thing" that's available via FTP?  If  
so, your hard disk is a lot larger than mine (I've got a bit over 1 gig).

In my own case, I'm also keeping an eye out for things that might interest  
people in my users group.  I don't give everyone the products, I just send  
out a message that includes a few lines saying "gee, you might find this  
interesting.  Pick it up and give it a try".  I only do that for products  
which I believe will interest someone on my list (ie, I have at least one  
specific person in mind).

> >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.
> 
> In Sherwood's original words:
>  "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 [...]"
> 
> He said "Not very, because you can't save" which to me means
> '[Diagram's demo isn't] very useful because [the Diagram! demo won't
> let one] save [data created in the Diagram! demo].'  From this, I
> gather that Sherwood would think it was more useful if it could save.

I still say you originally read his comment wrong.  "Not very useful" (to  
me) meant "Hey, it's still a demo, it's not the complete program".  Ie, he's  
saying the developer has not given away the entire product.  But it's still  
a *usable* demo, as opposed to an irritating demo.  Perhaps it's me who is  
reading that into his words, simply because I found the Diagram demo useful  
enough that I bought the program.

> All previous quotes were grabbed from Garance A. Drosehn's post, which
> makes me think that Garance A. Drosehn didn't read the quoted material
> completely.

I've read the post very completely, thank you very much.  It's a question of  
interpretation, where I'm more sympathetic to Sherwood's position simply  
because I'm in the same boat.  I assumed that Sherwood was trying to walk  
the fine line between a useful demo, and a useful program.  A very useful  
demo may still end up as being "not very useful" as a program.  That's the  
point of the demo (as opposed to just having the product be freeware).  I  
assume Sherwood was coming from that position (which is my own position),  
and if I read Sherwood's article using that assumption then I find no reason  
to change my assumption.

> >I'd advise you to wake up and listen a little closer.  You can call
> >Sherwood (and other systems administrators, like me) uncaring idiots
> >if you like, but  

> Exactly when did I say "uncaring idiot"?

Your entire post is based on the assumption that Sherwood is not concerned  
with the developer, or that he's trying to get full-blown applications which  
are labelled demos.  Your initial assumption is different than mine.  Your  
conclusions were also different.  I wanted to stress that there are others  
out here who might agree with Sherwood's points, and who do not fit the  
brush that you were painting Sherwood with.

Perhaps the fact that he put "Flamebait" in the subject encourages people to  
assume that everything he's saying is meant to be provocative.

 - - - -

> All in all, I think if anyone has serious problems with a demo, they
> contact the developer individually and not USENET.  It's been my
> experience that very few companies read these groups (especially
> advocacy groups) and implement changes based on their readings.

  [aside: note that Sherwood posted in csn.misc, not csn.advocacy...]

The point to complaining to usenet is a judgement call, perhaps, but I do  
think it's a valid place to bring the discussion up.  If I'm annoyed at a  
demo because it's too much of a hassle, I am not going to sit down and write  
a nice long message (or a letter, or a phone call) to each individual  
developer explaining my position.  The whole point is that I don't have the  
time for hassles with the demo, so I certainly don't have time to write each  
individual to say how I don't have time for their demo.

My (perhaps overly optimistic) hope is that by posting to usenet I'll inform  
some developers (a whole group of them) *before* they put a demo on the ftp  
archives which is too exasperating to be bothered with.  I'll spend 20  
minutes writing this article, and hopefully reach a few dozen developers.   
That's worth it to me, because I'd like to see decent products and have  
decent demos to make decisions on.  Spending the same amount of time to  
reach 1 single developer (who may not pay any attention anyway), is not  
worth my time.

Also note that these comments are intended for people who are putting demos  
on the FTP archives.  That's not the same as commercial software houses, and  
I suspect a fair number of "archive developers" do pay some attention to  
usenet.  Not all of them, to be sure, but enough that it's worth it to bring  
the subject up in this forum.

> I have no gripes against Garance A. Drosehn nor Sherwood Botsford
> personally (as I know neither one of them personally), however
> Sherwood Botsford's comments got me thinking about the intent
> and extent of demo software.

No grudges here either.  I think Sherwood's article is very useful because  
it does bring up the issue.  All I want are useful demo's, and I don't mind  
if there is something crippled in the demo to encourage people to buy the  
real thing.  Finding the correct balance between developer's needs and  
user's needs is a bit tricky, but I hope developer's will understand both  
sides of the coin.  If they do not, then they will not get much benefit from  
packaging up a demo (since it will be ignored).

I'd suggest great and wonderful solutions, but my impression is that the  
appropriate solution for one product will be pointless in some other  
product.  I could list some demo ideas which I thought were very good.   
Diagram was one, and PixelMagician was another.  Whatever the end user  
thinks of the products themselves, I thought the demo versions were very  
useful *demos* of the product.

--
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