A fair amount of software follows the model but does not use the term, everytime I go on the play store to look for an app I encounter many that offer a free version with limited features.
The term doesn't make much sense anymore because we don't share software, we just download it from the source. The business model makes more sense than ever, though.
Most of the shareware I got was downloaded from BBSes and the internet and even these central repositories that are the norm now are nothing new, in the 80s I went to a local BBS that was dedicated to shareware and in the 90s a handful of sites, and there was always the developer's site for the direct download but often they just linked you to one of the big repositories. The only shareware I can remember getting physically was the stuff that came on a disk/cd with some magazine I bought just for the CD filled with shareware. I miss those CDs.
For as long as I can remember shareware was more than the physical sharing, it was the model of a free version that you could share and a paid version and sometimes both versions were the same and it was just requested that you pay if you can (buy me a coffee). Some of this shareware was even adware, I remember getting some drawing program that had a popup every 15 minutes advertising the author's programs, it would go away if you paid; my first "hack" was realizing that I could start the program and then turn the computers date back a day giving me 24 hours and 15 minutes before the popup appeared, after a couple weeks my mom tasked me with fixing the computer, she was having to reset the date every couple days for some reason.
Edit: deleted a comment about source code, realize I misread your post. Should try to fix a couple of those sentences as well, my language skills tend to fall apart when I get nostalgic and I find it very difficult to restructure the thought, I lose the nostalgia.
I meant more as an active use-term for software licensing that kiki uses (and in the sense of the OP's question), not in its historical sense that it is used by writers now.
It is easy enough to avoid those and make sure you get better encodes, if size is not at all a priority for you.
My main problem, even with the better encoders, is the lack of choice in audio tracks and subs when I'm pretty sure the source material had the ones I might want.
As much as I'm avoiding GenAI myself⁰ I think your reaction is what feels a bit weird. You wouldn't be sending a tip for simply prompting the LLM, but for having the original idea and verifying/testing the result. If you don't feel right donating for that, then don't. Seeing a “buy me a coffee” link is hardly onerous, and it isn't exactly in-your-face here (I didn't notice at all until your comment mentioned it).
--------
[0] I want to code, I like the nitty-gritty, and if I want to outsource I'd prefer to outsource to a human¹ than GenAI
[1] they might outsource to GenAI of course, that is their choice and as long as they properly verify the output before handing it on to me I shouldn't have to care
> but ALL class action or settlement related emails get automatically chucked into to my gmail spam folder
Every now and then I get a glut of “if you bought X in timeframe Y you might be due a pay-out” junk mail, so this might be genuine false positives rather than something more sinister.
Though the cynic in me, that has been right so many times over the years wrt corporate behaviour, is inclined to agree with your much less generous assessment!
There is exactly zero chance the gmail team is unaware that epiqnotice.com is a legitimate sender of class action messages and getting falsely blocked.
There is also zero chance that there are not a fair few people who consider their messages to be UCE¹ even if they are actually due thruppence-ha'penny as their share of the class action win, and who therefore mark them as such which is a signal that automated filter management algorithms will pick up on.
--------
[1] They are email, from a commercial entity, and in many cases were not asked for, after all.
> The notice may be from a commercial entity but it's court-ordered. It's not spam.
How is the filtering algorithm expected to know that? Especially if numerous users do mark such messages as spam (or give the more passive signal of completely ignoring it despite paying attention to other messages), or other identification rules say that the messages look like other things that have been thusly marked over time?
> those automated algorithms based on feedback need to not cross user accounts
One of the touted advantages of collective mail systems like gmail is that such filtering can apply globally instead of us all having to individually train everything to our liking. There are conflicting priorities, and unfortunately your preferred priority just isn't winning here.
[Caveat: I don't use Google's mail services for anything other than occasional testing, like sending messages to/from my own mail server after reconfiguration or other admin work]
> How is the filtering algorithm expected to know that?
It doesn't. The humans working there need to add an override.
> One of the touted advantages of collective mail systems [...]
You cut off the most important qualifier in what I said. "In this case." They should be isolating or flat-out ignoring feedback for specifically epiqnotice.com.
If carving out exceptions like that were implemented by their choice, there would be a shit-storm of concerns about how it could be abused, with people immediately accusing them of abusing it because a message from a Google property or political entity got through to them. I wouldn't implement that by choice in their position.
“By choice” is a load bearing member in that sentence structure, and depends on the exact wording of “court-ordered to send and deliver” - it could be interpreted, as you do, as “the messages must be made visible to the user” but I assume it has instead been interpreted as “the message must make it to the account of the user” (and the spam box as part of that account if the filters happen to put it there instead of elsewhere). We'd have to inspect the court order to see how specific or not the wording is in that area before passing judgement on the technical correctness of each interpretation.
You think they have no mechanism for exceptions? And there would be a shitstorm just for having it? That's such a strange view to me that I don't think we're going to get anywhere near agreement on this.
It looks like you are writing an email. Would you like some help with that?
Seems somewhat familiar from somewhere…
I got a new Samsung phone a few months ago (my last phone was showing signs of dying soon, and I'd promised to never touch Xiaomi again). It took a while to convince the two competing sets of GenAI features (Gemini and Bixby, and related features) that if I wanted their help I'd come calling, and until then they should sod off and leave me to do things myself.
If the corporates are OK downloading content in breach of licences for training their intelligences, which apparently they are, I consider myself OK doing the same to train the model in my head.
Depends what code you are programming. Unless you are doing significant number crunching, 3D work, or local GenAI, there is an awful lot that spec can do. If you are working on a multi-user system and it is slow processing your actions as a single tester on this, then you have a heck of a lot of optimising ahead unless you want your production users to hate you!
Maybe you'd save running a large test suite until back at base with the branch checked out on something beefier, but for on-the-go coding I expect this spec would do just fine for many. The reviewer's comments about the keyboard would be my concern, not the limits if what it can run.
Or get what fits your preferred routine if available, instead of changing to match others?
Though my experience with this brand is mixed at best so I'd personally give this one a miss, especially given the reviewer's comments on the keyboard.
> The only way to stop this is for the original author(s) to release this under a BSD license.
That is likely not possible even if they wanted to - unless all contributors have signed over rights to their contributions.
Even then if the new project is specifically wanting to simplify things, and/or a change in language is important, reimplementation might still be preferable for them.
Now that is a blast from the past.
Is much else distributed that way these days?
reply