Re: Asimov pirates AppleWorks 5, kills AppleWorks 5.2/6.0!

[pfg@cs.rmit.edu.au (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes:

>The Asimov site and the jerks that run it have lost all credibility in
>my eyes.  They have pirated AppleWorks 5 and now they refuse
>to remove the dsks of AW5.  Furthermore, they have yet to remove
>ProTerm 3.1.

>This is rediculous.  They are claiming that only the software
>copyright holders have the right to ask them to remove the programs.
>It is bad enough that they are breaking the law.  This time, by
>pirating current commercial software, they have killed a project to
>update one of the most important programs for A2 users.

Oh boo hoo hoo.

>Asimov has killed AppleWorks 5.2/6.0.  Yes, major financial
>backers of the project have abandoned support because of this
>action.  Yet the jerks at Asimov refuse to remove the program.

You know, generally I respect you Supertimer, as much as respect anyone
who uses an AOL account, that is ;-). But this is the sort of drivel worthy
of Nutball himself. How about some *EVIDENCE* that Asimov has killed of
the Appleworks upgrade. Perhaps a message from the Appleworks development
team, that sort of thing that it was actually Asimov providing it that
made them decide not to produce an update. 

Heavon forbid that you might be pulling the "abandoned support" statement
out of your *arse*.

>They want a request from APPLE...rediculous.

>Maybe someone should tell those Asimov assholes that APPLE
>does not hold the rights to AppleWorks and Timeout.  Maybe
>someone should tell them SCANTRON QUALITY COMPUTERS
>holds the copyright.

Then maybe *Santran* can bloody well act in the protection of their product
instead of letting evangalists like you do it for them. What you're saying,
actually is that:

- Asimov will always pull off a software at the request of the copyright owner
- They've decided to not to release an Appleworks update for the sole reason
  that there is a copy of v5 on a single archive site Asimov, which has
  stated it's willingness to remove software at the request of the owner.

Maybe they just decided not to release an update because the A2 market is
so small now. It'd have to be, when the supposed "pirating" of a single
site does so much financial damage as to completely cripple the sales of
a product.

>Didn't Gina Saikan work at Scantron Quality Computers?  Does
>she still read csa2?  Maybe she can be pursuaded to issue the
>removal order to Asimov.  Maybe if Asimov is forced to remove
>AppleWorks, we'll get AppleWorks 5.2/6.0.

Hah hah ha. Whilst I have fond memories of the Apple//e, I can face reality.
The Apple 2/GS is no longer a viable market for anybody but niche developers.
It is *much* more probably that that is the reason for withholidng funding
rather than a copy of a product on a single site that you don't approve of.


>Think about this people.  If it were a choice between seeing
>Asimov destroyed and getting an AppleWorks 5.2/6.0 upgrade,
>I wouldn't even pause to light the match that burns Asimov to
>the ground myself...

I dare say you would. But I seriously doubt that the two have any
connectoin personally. In the words of Terry Prachett:

"The facial hair is quite puzzling." 
"It's a single of wisdom" said Ridcully.
"Ah. The length of the hair improves the operation of the cognitive
functions? Some sort of cooling arrangement perhaps?"
	-- Terry Prachett, The Last Continent

^-- the two facts are, in my opinion, completely unrelated to each other.


>Pirating current software DOES destroy software development.
>I don't care what some people say.  Remember SoundSmith?
>Remember how the commercial version of SoundSmith never
>saw the light of day because a beta was pirated?  Think about
>this, folks.

Maybe you should really think hard about the facts, as in "evidence" facts.
Whilst I am generally on the side of Asimov, I would be quite happy to side
with you if you could produce evidence that:
1) The copyrighted owner of Appleworks, whoever it is, had in fact asked
   Asimov to remove it, and Asimov refused
2) A signed statement or announcement from the "financial backers" that
   it was in fact Asimov's so-called pirating of Appleworks that was their
   reason for not backing a new Appleworks release, and not something 
   else, like, oh, there being no Apple //e market anymore.

People will respond oh so much better to evidence... we've had enough years
of preconditioning in ignoring Nutball's rants to be swayed by anything
less. ;-)

--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (The DreamMaster)
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 5, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.