From: jeffo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Let's complain to the developers and not USENET (was: Re: Open letter to NextDevelopers (long)(Flamebait))
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:04:19 GMT
Reply-To: jeffo@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

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?  This demo doesn't destroy anything or log people out.  And
who is he to determine whether a program fills anothers needs?
Perhaps someone likes this program even though he doesn't like the demo of
this program.

Although he complained solely about those limits in the demo, my
points were directed toward his problems with the limits.  This I
illustrate later.

>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.

I've never seen a demo that didn't run itself.  There are programs
that invite user interaction (like Frame's demo), but that's not what
I mean.  When I read "[The demo] has to run itself, without hassling
the users" that makes me think that the demo should not be crashing
the system, or logging the user out or buggy in some way.

Also, if the package is a demo (both in /Demos and obviously limited
in that it won't save [every demo I've seen says in a panel or
somewhere obvious like a window that pops up on launching the program
"I won't save because I'm a demo"]) it should be obvious to the users
that something is taken out.  If this isn't obvious, can't Sherwood
put up a message of the day that reads:

  Please don't complain about the programs in /Demos to me, for they
  are installed here as they come from the developer.  If you want to
  purchase one to have the full-featured version installed, contact
  me.

>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.

Therefore I say:
 "This is an outright ridiculous expectation for a demo.  It's not a useful
  demo because it cannot *save*?  Get real."

So, Sherwood seems to think it is both useable and "not very" useable.
From this, we are both correct, however I still find it valid to find
fault with the fact that he thinks it is "not very" usable because it
cannot save.

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.

>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).

Sherwood Botsford said:
 "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."

And in reply I said:
 "That is a nice demo, but you really should get your mind off of
  saving information from a demo."

My comment was again directed toward his propensity to discussing
saving data from a demo.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I find that any
discussion of saving data in a demo is unnecessary as I don't think
that people should expect data to be saved from a demo program.  Why?
I've discussed this already in a previous article on this thread.  If
you look at the first part of my sentence, I have clearly read his
article, as I agree that Frame's demo is a nice demo.

Again, all previous quotes were grabbed from Garance A. Drosehn's article
which again makes me think that perhaps something was skimmed or read
out of context.  No matter how or if it was read, my point 

>He never made such a complaint.

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

This was, as others read it to be, a feeling coming from the
accumulation of disagreements with Sherwood Botsford's article.

>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.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  Although I have only seen one
package that wanted to be put someplace (and no other) [namely Louis
Mamakos' SLIP package] I think that he made a good decision on where
to put it and I think that in that instance, that was okay.

>2) Provide two packages, one for the application and the other for the
>   documentation.

You mention Stone Design, and I'd like to add FrameMaker.  With v3.0,
they have FrameMaker.pkg for the program and FrameDocs.pkg for the
documentation.  I agree with this wholeheartedly as well.

>Other than that, I like packages.

Me too.  I think they are a good idea, and making them a single file
or complaining about having to deal with a tar file that might not
expand as one might want is a non-problem.  Simply list the files in
the tar file before expanding, or if that is too much trouble, make a
directory called ~/expanded-tar-files and always expand things in
there (before moving them to their proper place).  And lastly, never
have more than one expanded tar archive in ~/expanded-tar-files so
that removal of any duds is an easy "rm -R ~/expanded-tar-files/*".

After I said:
 "Overall, I'd say your views on demo programs are *way* off [...]"

Garance A. Drosehn responded:
>I do not understand your vitriolic response to the original article.

Given the aforementioned clarifications and comparative views from
both ends, I think this has been made more clear.

>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 have not ever called you an idiot, nor shall I do so here and now.
Furthermore, given some of the comments the way I interpreted them
(and explained above), I came off with the feeling that he had little
feeling for the developer.

>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  

Exactly when did I say "uncaring idiot"?  No matter, I still think
that tipping people off that the demo is seen by them as the developer
chose to release it (thus relieving you from explaining the demo's
problems) is possible (as I said above).

>whatever products come in *-stupid-* demonstration packages will simply get  
>tossed in the trash.  

The only thing I think is stupid about demo programs are ones that
limit the user to a certain amount of time.  Limiting resources such
as disk space (why *do* demo programs write defaults?), ability to
save files and cut & copy are all that I think are necessary.  Even a
terminal program could be limited to things like window size, baud
rate (perhaps)).  Just as long as notices are clearly posted that
these removed features are not removed from the purchased product.
For instance, when one tries to size a window beyond a certain width
and height, a panel comes up saying why it won't work and that it will
work on a licensed copy.

Don't forget that demos aren't everything.  Where is the WP demo and
the Oracle demo?  Both are big name products, but neither have NeXT
demos, that I've seen.  And both are well-known names in their
respective fields.  The last WP demo I saw on an IBM was a slideshow
and not even an operable product fragment.  Although, I do agree that
demos are an important part of a purchase when the programs cost as
much as NeXT programs do (educational prices for EqB and Diagram! not
included [$50 and $25 respectively, anyone can afford that])

>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.

That's nice, however the comment was aimed at Sherwood Botsford in my
understanding that demos would be better if they could save.  To me,
that's asking for free software under the name of a demo.

>I don't mind paying for  
>an application once I've determined that it does a useful job for me, 

Very few professionals feel differently.  I don't think user-hostility
or recklessness is something anyone wants in a demo, let alone a
purchased piece of software.

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.

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.
-- 
-- Jeff (jeffo@uiuc.edu)
-- No NeXTmail please
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy