On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:20:50 +1300 (NZDT) Volker Kuhlmann
got it together enough to write: The linux version is beta, has no java (IIRC), has no email client, and the preferences don't work properly. For payware I expect better than that.
You don't pay for this (beta) release for Linux. It is a 30 day shareware licence (with
CS> nag screen on boot). The options will be the same as for MS version - free with ad banner, CS> or $US39 minus the ad.
CS> That is not my definition of "free". CS> I refuse to use anything that shows me ad's as a condition of CS> use. CS> And I have no intention of paying $39 to not see something..
CS> If they cannot open-source it, then I shall ignore it :) CS> But that is just my philosophy, if I want crippleware, adware, CS> underwear, expensiveware.. well my local computer shop has CS> plenty of that for sale ..
CS> Cliff
Typical closeminded linux-user view, really. "If it's not free, I don't want it." *THAT* really annoys me.
It is not close-minded, it is actually a philosophical standpoint ! Since I espouse the Open Source ideal (and the definition of "free" that is embraced by that, which does not necessarily mean without cost) I do not see why I cannot choose to work with the tools I wish to. I happen to think there is quite enough advertising on the Internet without my browser flashing nonsense at me (especially since I don't live in the US most of the ads would be irrelevant anyway). And I certainly would not consider it money well spent to *pay* NOT to see advertising. This is the wrong way around. As for this incredible idea that someone dreamed up of limited lifetime beta test versions. You use them for free for 30 days, do testing for the company - presumably moaning back to them about bugs - then they have the gall to ask you to pay for the real version... (OT: Linux is not really "free", certainly not in the sense say that FreeBSD is...but that is another argument.) Cliff