On 2003-10-22, Daniel Cohen <com> wrote:
This is what my father used to call a mug's game. I'll pass.
For the third time: if there's any distinction at all between
shareware and commercial sofware, and if you can't offer anything that
distinguishes AudioHijack from commercial software, it CAN"T POSSIBLY
MATTER what the exact definition is. I'm sorry you can't see this,
but I'm not a teacher. Somebody else will have to explain it you.
Only one person (not you) has even attempted to offer a distinction.
He says the important difference between AudioHijack and, say, BBEdit,
which nobody calls shareware, is that BBEdit comes in a shrinkwrapped
box. This feels arbitrary to me, I don't see why the delivery medium
is relevant. If Bare Bones decided to sell BBEdit only via download,
would that mean it had moved into the "shareware" category?
But there's no question that this is a real difference. He understood
the issue and came up with a rational response. And maybe he's right;
maybe download-only software really is categorically different from
sofware that can also be bought in a more physical form.
Take a look at the Subject again. The OP is specifically concerned
about the ability of the recording software to deal properly with
recordings of long duration. Explain to me how he can know that about
AudioHijack in demo mode, when it's designed to degrade after 10
People's attachment to software they buy is can be quite mind
Btw I'm a paid-up owner of AudioHijack. It works well for my purposes
and it seems to be a clean piece of design. But if you point out its
flaws to me (it has some) I won't throw a hissy fit.