On Dec 30, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Rick Schummer wrote:
> This is where I disagree Ed. People are using it, will continue to
> use it, and are not looking for
> alternatives. "Basic" is relative in this case. I see a ZIP utility
> as extremely necessary to
> operate in the computing world, and thus it is not basic. Required
> is a way better description.
The two terms are orthogonal. A utility to list the directory
contents is "required"; I cannot imagine operating a computer without
one. But it is also a very basic utility, as opposed to, say, a video
processing utility.
There are probably thousands of utilities that can zip/unzip; most
can also work with other compression formats. 'zip' and 'unzip' are
basic *nix commands. 7-Zip is a great Windows utility that I see
being used more and more, and outperforms WinZip in compression.
Being able to compress/decompress is "required", but it doesn't
follow that only one such utility that can do this is "required".
When there are free alternatives that can do what most people need in
terms of zip utils, the ones that cost money will be less attractive,
and will only be used by a) those who need a specific feature that
does not exist in the free alternatives, or b) those who have grown
to love that particular utility and would therefore pay for
functionality that is otherwise available for free.
> They already like WinZip as the best thing and won't bother looking
> around.
That's case b) listed above.
> They are getting the older version (or continuing to use the older
> version) and violate the licensing agreement 10 times a day. Period.
They sound like jerks then. If there are free versions that out-
perform WinZip, but they insist on using WinZip without paying for
it, then they are simply jerks. Period.
> But obviously from past discussions you don't see this as cheating
> or stealing so I won't go
> down this road again.
That is a completely wrong and libelous ad hominem argument, and
frankly, I'm surprised that you would sink to that. While I don't
view failing to pay for software, which is infinitely reproducible as
the exact same thing as stealing an actual item, which is not
infinitely reproducible, you are not entitled to then smear me by
claiming that I don't view that as either dishonest or, in your
words, "cheating".
All I've said is that arguments that compare copying a digital bit
stream to stealing an actual hardware item are faulty and do not
serve to support the position that such intellectual property should
be used only in terms of the licensing under which it was released.
Copying a digital item may be wrong, but it is not the same thing as
taking a non-replaceable item. If I were to take $50 from you wallet,
you would not have that money anymore. But if I were to use a $50
program that you wrote, your situation does not change, even though
I'm still being dishonest. But you cannot claim that the two are one
and the same.
> Cheapskates not paying $30 for simple and required utility are
> stupid. Anyone who can afford US$400 for a computer can afford US
> $30 for a critical utility. If you want free, go get a freebie. If
> you want WinZip, pay for it.
WinZip is not required. Being able to compress/decompress may be,
but WinZip is simply one solution to this basic need.
I don't think that you would argue that water is a requirement for
humans, but that doesn't mean that Dasani or Aquafina can claim that
either you buy their product (that is available for free in lots of
other places), or you are a "cheapskate", or a "cheater", or whatever
invective you care to toss around.
If something offers a particular value over alternatives, then it
will likely be worth paying for. But if it simply does the same thing
as other free alternatives, it is unlikely that many will pay for it
who aren't "in love" with that particular product. And rather than
using derogatory terms such as "cheapskate" to characterize such
people, I would call them "wise" or "thrifty".
What, in your opinion, does WinZip offer that 7-Zip does not?
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
