ShareWare vs Evaluation

[kid joe]

Hi

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?
Having a ShareWare product that can be activated to a fully enabled
version of that product with a registration code has it's disadvantages
(given the numerous websites that post 'regcodes'), but ShareWare is also
a fast and efficient means in keeping a customer happy. Evaluation-ware,
on the other hand, where code segments are missing, represents a more
secure form of delivering a demo product that cannot be compromised - but
this is at the cost of possibly aggravating potential customers who would
need to download the full version after gaining access to it through a
legitimate purchase.

Any opinions or experiences?

Thanks

Joe
--
.--------------------.
| |
| Good Morning.... | .--.--.
| | .; .;|;. ;.
`-------------. ,---' .;_;' `;_;.
\| ; ;' `; ;
\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=3D( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )
\| . . |/
........... . .:::::. . .______
/ . '---` . '\
.' `. .' \
| ____,.- . | `.....' | _______ |
| ,-' \ /|\'' \.-- |
| / \.'\ /,'. \. - |
| /| ` `\ / \ |
| ,/ _ '/ '\ |
,-' ,-. |o '
/ '| | | | \
/ ,/| |o | \ `
| .' | |.' |. \ \
________/ .'____|________ _______________ _||__`. `__________
( \ ) / )
'-. '-. ( .-` .-`
'-. .-'--.__. .-.__.--`-. .-`
'-..' \--' : ~`:=3D,`- `..-`
\ .. \\ |`-'|`-, /
\\\\\\\) | |`-'/.'/
\)\)\\ `-' `-'
`

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <ge**********@n ews.xmission.co mga*****@shell.x mission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi .nlwrote:

In article <ge**********@n ews.xmission.co mga*****@shell.x mission.com
(Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi .nlwrote:

...

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?
>
In a word, yes.

Ah, that must be the reason that people post a question twice, or even
three times if they do not get an answer. Now I understand.

Yes. For the same reason as they often re-post when all they get is BS
answers. Effectively, BS answers are just line noise.

It is the nature of Usenet that if you post something and get no
response (or only BS responses), the post effecively "goes away" (since
Usenet articles have short shelf lives). So, yes, you have to re-post.

So if someone posts a question to a newsgroup were by the very nature of
that newsgroup there is possibly no one who is able to answer the question,
he should keep on posting that question over and over again until he dies
of old age?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[James Kuyper]

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <ge**********@n ews.xmission.co mga*****@shell.x mission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi .nlwrote:

...

Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?

...

But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

Apparently he's referring to people who's self-respect is so tenuous
that they feel threatened by any message pointing out to them that they
have posted a question to the wrong newsgroup. Getting no answer at all
is apparently preferable to these people, then having their self-respect
diminished by having to be re-directed to a different group where they
could actually get a useful answer to their question.

I don't know any people that neurotic (or at least, anybody with that
particular neurosis), but Kenny apparently considers it commonplace, in
fact normal.

[James Kuyper]

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <ge**********@n ews.xmission.co mga*****@shell.x mission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi .nlwrote:

In article <ge**********@n ews.xmission.co mga*****@shell.x mission.com
(Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <K9********@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi .nlwrote:
...
Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?
>
In a word, yes.

Ah, that must be the reason that people post a question twice, or even
three times if they do not get an answer. Now I understand.

>
Yes. For the same reason as they often re-post when all they get is BS
answers. Effectively, BS answers are just line noise.

I thought the discussion was about redirecting a question to a more
appropriate newsgroup? Such responses carry information that is far more
useful than line noise.

Kenny has indicated that he believes that some people would so ashamed
to learn that they've posted to the wrong newsgroup, that they would be
offended by any message which pointed out that fact; so seriously
offended that they would prefer not to receive such a response, even if
going to the right newsgroup would get them a much better answer, and
more quickly. I suppose that for such neurotic people, a useful response
(the kind that he labels BS) is worse than silence. However, I suspect
that such neurotic attitudes are far less common than he thinks they are.

[Keith Thompson]

Phil Carmody <th************ *****@yahoo.co. ukwrites:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rites:

[...]

>Please don't feed the troll. Replying to "Kenny McCormack" just gives
him the attention he apparently wants. Don't play his game.

There's a fine line between a troll and a palooka. I have no
problem handing out a few negative strokes while I work out which.

If you think "Kenny McCormack" is anything other than a pure troll,
you just haven't been paying attention.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Keith Thompson]

James Kuyper <ja*********@ve rizon.netwrites :
[...]

I thought the discussion was about redirecting a question to a more
appropriate newsgroup? Such responses carry information that is far
more useful than line noise.

Kenny has indicated that he believes that some people would so ashamed
to learn that they've posted to the wrong newsgroup, that they would
be offended by any message which pointed out that fact; so seriously
offended that they would prefer not to receive such a response, even
if going to the right newsgroup would get them a much better answer,
and more quickly. I suppose that for such neurotic people, a useful
response (the kind that he labels BS) is worse than silence. However,
I suspect that such neurotic attitudes are far less common than he
thinks they are.

He doesn't really believe that. See
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.unix.progr ammer/msg/a477f6fb47780d8 9>
Message-ID: <g9**********@n ews.xmission.co m>
in which "Kenny" writes:

And, BTW, this is more of a comp.unix.shell question than a
comp.unix.progr ammer one.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Antoninus Twink]

On 6 Nov 2008 at 18:09, Keith Thompson wrote:

He doesn't really believe that. See
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.unix.progr ammer/msg/a477f6fb47780d8 9>
Message-ID: <g9**********@n ews.xmission.co m>

What a sad man you are. Do you have a box of index cards where all the
"slips" made by your favorite betes noires are painstakingly cataloged
for possible future use against them?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <sl************ *******@nospam. invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam. invalidwrote:

>On 6 Nov 2008 at 18:09, Keith Thompson wrote:

>He doesn't really believe that. See
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.unix.progr ammer/msg/a477f6fb47780d8 9>
Message-ID: <g9**********@n ews.xmission.co m>

What a sad man you are. Do you have a box of index cards where all the
"slips" made by your favorite betes noires are painstakingly cataloged
for possible future use against them?

Apparently so.

But I do have to say, I'm flattered to have my very own personal stalker.

[Nick Keighley]

On 6 Nov, 16:04, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@ve rizon.netwrote:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <geut9o$tj...@n ews.xmission.co mgaze...@shell. xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
*In article <K9wuC8....@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Win...@cwi .nlwrote:

*Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?
...
*But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
*are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect..

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

Apparently he's referring to people who's self-respect is so tenuous
that they feel threatened by any message pointing out to them that they
have posted a question to the wrong newsgroup. Getting no answer at all
is apparently preferable to these people, then having their self-respect
diminished by having to be re-directed to a different group where they
could actually get a useful answer to their question.

I don't know any people that neurotic (or at least, anybody with that
particular neurosis), but Kenny apparently considers it commonplace, in
fact normal.

people who don't like being told (no matter how nicely) they are wrong
are in fact very common. Good techies are much less prone to this
neurosis
and managers much more so. You can be labelled as "negative" or "not
really
a team player" if you point out incorrect reasoning or facts too
frequently
(ie. more than zero times). It's another variant on cognitive
dissonance.

--
Nick Keighley

(Proverbs 17:10) A rebuke works deeper in one having understanding
than striking a stupid one a hundred times.

[James Kuyper]

Nick Keighley wrote:

On 6 Nov, 16:04, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@ve rizon.netwrote:

>Dik T. Winter wrote:

>>In article <geut9o$tj...@n ews.xmission.co mgaze...@shell. xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <K9wuC8....@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Win...@cwi .nlwrote:

>> Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?
...
But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.
Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

Apparently he's referring to people who's self-respect is so tenuous
that they feel threatened by any message pointing out to them that they
have posted a question to the wrong newsgroup. Getting no answer at all
is apparently preferable to these people, then having their self-respect
diminished by having to be re-directed to a different group where they
could actually get a useful answer to their question.

I don't know any people that neurotic (or at least, anybody with that
particular neurosis), but Kenny apparently considers it commonplace, in
fact normal.

people who don't like being told (no matter how nicely) they are wrong
are in fact very common.

I agree - I don't like to be wrong, and I dislike it even more when
someone else knows that I'm wrong, and I'm sure that such dislikes are
commonplace. However, I also prefer getting the correct answer to my
questions over not getting the correct answer, and that's more important
to me than the first issue. Are people who consider the second issue
less important as common as Kenny thinks they are?

[osmium]

"James Kuyper" wrote:

>>> Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?
...
But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other
group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.
Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?
Apparently he's referring to people who's self-respect is so tenuous
that they feel threatened by any message pointing out to them that they
have posted a question to the wrong newsgroup. Getting no answer at all
is apparently preferable to these people, then having their self-respect
diminished by having to be re-directed to a different group where they
could actually get a useful answer to their question.

I don't know any people that neurotic (or at least, anybody with that
particular neurosis), but Kenny apparently considers it commonplace, in
fact normal.

people who don't like being told (no matter how nicely) they are wrong
are in fact very common.

I agree - I don't like to be wrong, and I dislike it even more when
someone else knows that I'm wrong, and I'm sure that such dislikes are
commonplace. However, I also prefer getting the correct answer to my
questions over not getting the correct answer, and that's more important
to me than the first issue. Are people who consider the second issue less
important as common as Kenny thinks they are?

I haven't been following this thread and don't know who the good guys are
and who the bad guys are.

BUT. In a thread discussing "shareware vs. evaluation" There IS NO correct
answer. There are only .... answers. Discussions of such things are just
that, discussions, and implying that there is a correct answer is a red
herring.