Re: apple.cabi.net and the A2-Delphi forum-- time to share?

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Tony Ward writes ...
> 
 ....
>>
BTW, let's end the comp.emulators.apple2 followup here. There's no  
reason to have this thread echoed there. I goofed by leaving it in there
on my first couple messages.
<<

     Comp.emulators.apple2 people have an interest in open access to A2 software
and some do not read Csa2. Might as well mirror the remainder of this thread
there.



> In comp.sys.apple2 Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
> >      Tony's observation was that the income for managing the site was
> > small and not an important factor and that the work is done by
> > volunteers. If making a buck is not an important factor, then,
> > logically, what really matters is having control-- i.e. 'turf'.
> 
> How about a third choice: Doing it for the love of the Apple II. That's
> the only reason I can imagine for putting in time on a job that pays
> nothing, in any profession. I'm certainly not doing it for money or
> recognition or control.

     Well, defending a 'turf' is not necessarily bad. If you truly believe that
keeping the files on a closed site is best for the expansion and enjoyment of II
computing, then, that is what you should do.


> 
> >      You guys seem to constantly be pleading non-responsibility for
> > anything. Like, the restrictions and fees are bad old Delphi's fault--
> > except, of course, that the archive managers _choose_ to have the
> > files on Delphi.
> 
> Bad old Delphi? I don't think I ever said I didn't like Delphi. I
> wouldn't work there or use the service if I didn't like it. We choose to
> have the files there because that's where the Forum is located. We could
> probably find an ftp site to put all the files on, but then we'd have to
> maintain two separate locations. Why bother doing that when there are
> already Apple II ftp sites out there with most of the same stuff? Keep
> in mind that many Apple II users are not comfortable with ftp. That's
> part of the reason the Genie library continues to be popular, even at
> the ghastly speed of 14400 bps.
> 
> Given the choice, I would take Genie's file system over ftp any day.
> Delphi's is okay, about on par with ftp IMHO.
> 
> Remember that the typical Apple II user doesn't have the benefit of a
> PPP connection with a dedicated ftp client. For him it's much simpler to
> download files the old-fashioned way with X/Y/Zmodem. Even with a Unix
> shell ISP account you have to do a two-step ftp/protocol download to get
> the files from an ftp site.
> 
> Delphi and Genie also benefit from their offline readers, or navigators.
> On either system I can gather all the messages in a quick online pass,
> read them offline at my leisure, then have the OLR go back online and
> post replies, read new messages, download files, etc. With an Apple II,
> there is no easy way to do that with Usenet and ftp, and it's impossible
> with Web-based message boards.
> 
> I realize that in this csa2 forum I am speaking mostly to people who use
> other computers in addition to or instead of their Apple II. I think
> that might be the cause of some of the confusion.
>
 ....

     To some extent, yes. Your explanation of a rationale for having the files on
a site like Delphi makes sense.

     Possibly the major reason for confusion has been the assertion from some
that A2-Delphi is the "hub of the II computing universe". This view was taken by
many here as, so to speak, A2-Delphi's 'mission statement'.

     The result has been some confusion and unreasonable expectations-- for
example, a policy of insisting that authors _not_ place distribution restrictions
on "shareware" and "freeware" maintained by your archive and allowing the
transfer of any software from your archive to open sites. Also, it seemed
reasonable to question restricted access to the "hub's" on-line newsletter. 

     Clearly, in light of your positions and explanations, the generally held
impression of A2-Delphi's mission was not correct. Basically, A2-Delphi is a
users' group. Like many other users' groups, it is perfectly free to allow
restrictions on software distribution and open its software library only to paid
members. No one expects a users' group to let just anyone read its current
newsletter edition for free, either.

     Thanks for a good discussion of the issue.



Rubywand