From 18c97fdb58d2808826f224a067bd1ab8aff80bcf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jeff Parsons Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 14:33:17 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] New blog post: Magware --- _posts/2017-07-09-magware.md | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+) create mode 100644 _posts/2017-07-09-magware.md diff --git a/_posts/2017-07-09-magware.md b/_posts/2017-07-09-magware.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0315b7151 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2017-07-09-magware.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +--- +layout: post +title: Magware +date: 2017-07-09 22:00:00 +permalink: /blog/2017/07/09/ +--- + +You may recall from my [last post](/blog/2017/07/03/) that I had tracked down some useful Modula-2 test code, +originally published in [PC Tech Journal (October 1986)](http://www.pcjs.org/pubs/pc/magazines/pctj/PCTJ-1986-10/), +inside a ZIP archive at "[THE PROGRAMMER'S CORNER: BBS ARCHIVE FROM THE PAST](https://www.pcorner.com/list/MAG)". + +It turned out that that archive was a rabbit hole I could not *not* go down. + +First, I collected all the other PC Tech Journal ZIP archives there (from December 1985 through January 1989), +recreated them as a set of [PC Tech Journal Disks](/disks/pcx86/shareware/pctj/), and added them to the +[PCjs Disk Library](/disks/pcx86/), so now you can "Load" and "Save" them in any [PCjs Machine](devices/pcx86/machine/). + +Next, since I was also a fan of PC Magazine back in the day, I decided to do the same for all the PC Magazine ZIP +archives. So now there's a set of [PC Magazine Disks](/disks/pcx86/shareware/pcmag/) you can play with as well. + +I'm calling these disks *Magware* because I can't be sure exactly how to classify everything on them. Most of it +was probably considered free: source code was generally included without any restrictions. But it's possible that +the magazines also redistributed some third-party software that fell into more of a *Shareware* category. + +About these collections: I'm thrilled that they exist. Not everyone needs to be (or should be) a collector, but the +world needs at least a few dedicated individuals working in every domain (hardware, software, books, magazines, +photographs, recordings, etc) along with museums and libraries to support their efforts. So kudos to the folks +at [The Programmer's Corner](https://www.pcorner.com) for saving what they could and continuing to make them available. + +Sadly, these collections are woefully incomplete. The people who could have done the best job of archiving +everything that PC Tech Journal and PC Magazine produced were the publishers themselves, but of course, we don't +live in a society where "archiving" is part of the corporate compact. Corporations care about assets and monetization. +Even if an asset is never used and gradually disintegrates over time, your average corporation is fine with that, +because the fact that no *other* corporation was able to use it is just another kind of monetization. Some corporations +do build their own archives, but you can never be sure they weren't edited in self-serving or promotional ways. And +other corporations are happy to see their old products archived, provided someone pays them for the privilege. + +I'm also a little sad to see these collections being leveraged as a way of making money. For one thing, it goes +against the spirit in which the software was originally shared (ie, for free). For another, it's a real nuisance. + +For example, if you visit [MAG Files from The Programmer's Corner](https://www.pcorner.com/list/MAG), you can't +simply download everything on that page. You have to click on a link to a ZIP file, which takes you to a second page +listing the contents of the ZIP file and a "Download File Here" link, which takes you to a third page with a tiny +"Click here" link that will finally download the ZIP file. And at every step of the way, you're also being asked +to "Donate". + +So what should have been a quick ONE-click operation becomes a very slow THREE-click operation, giving you lots of +opportunities to stare at lots of ads. Three pages of them, with ads across the top, down the right-hand side, and +across the bottom. I understand that running a web server has a cost and that ads help defray that cost. But there +HAVE to be better ways to do this. + +For starters, there are users like me, who are happy to support the preservation efforts of others. I opted to pay +the requested $40 donation for "unlimited access" to The Programmer's Corner. However, that merely allowed me download +more than 5 files per hour. I still had to slowly wade through endless pages of ads to get the roughly 200 files I was +specifically interested in. This isn't exactly endearing behavior, which means I probably won't return to The +Programmer's Corner by choice, but only out of necessity. + +On a more philosophical note, I think it's important for a service to be clear about what we're paying for; ie, that +we're paying for an archival service and that the money being generated for that service (whether by ads or donations) +is purely in support of that service, and that the archived items themselves are not being held hostage ("ransomed") or +used in any way that the original authors might have disapproved of. + +It shouldn't be hard to create a compelling website with useful features that people will *want* to revisit repeatedly. +Even a site that's just a bunch of "downloads" should be able to avoid resorting to gimmicks if they at least have a +mission, are actively working to promote that mission, and build a community of like-minded people who believe in that +mission. + +The [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/) model, where you try to get a handful of people to support your project with +small monthly contributions, seems like one possible solution. Of course, that usually requires working on the project +on a regular basis, and if a website like [The Programmer's Corner](https://www.pcorner.com) is more or less on auto-pilot, +that probably won't work. + +I've thought about this problem in the context of PCjs, and what, if anything, I could or should do to help pay for its +monthly operating costs (which are currently around $30/month for hosting and bandwidth). Ads are a horrible idea, +because they're both unsightly and unseemly. I've come to conclusion that you have to make money doing something else, +and that projects like this just have to be supported by people's own personal obsessions, passions, and other intangibles. + +*[@jeffpar](http://twitter.com/jeffpar)* +*Jul 9, 2017*