> > Matt's Script Archive is a terrible collection.
>
> It's also free. Somebody wrote some helpful perl scripts and provided them free of charge -- so does anyone really have the right to lambast them for any reason? If you paid money for the scripts, that would be an entirely different matter. Then whoever was in charge of Matt's Script Archive (Matt?) would have a responsibility to provide reliable products, services, and support. But as they're free, I don't believe anyone has the moral right to criticize -- one just has the right not to use the scripts there and the right, perhaps, to steer those looking for reliable scripts away from it. After all, Matt isn't under any sort of obligation to keep his free services up to any predetermined standard of quality. By what agreement *could* he be bound? Pay him, then complain.
>
> I take the same attitude toward this as I do when the occasional Internet surfer flames me for something they don't like about RinkWorks. (Usually, "it sucks.") Somehow people get the idea -- presumably from having to pay for most other services -- that if they can use it, the author/distributor automatically has a responsibility to provide support, fix bugs, and otherwise cater to their related needs. Yeah, right. No one would argue that I wouldn't have that responsibility had I never started RinkWorks at all, so how does providing something in exchange for nothing burden me with it? One of the reasons (albeit a secondary reason) I'm keeping RinkWorks free is to avoid the responsibility of *having* to satisfying my customers. With everything free, you take it and like it, or you move on. "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" is what all this boils down to.
>
> So regarding Matt's Script Archive, I will happily partake of their offered services, fix the bugs in the scripts myself before I use them, and even recommend the site to others, because the something they have is most assuredly and significantly better than nothing.

Sam--

Didn't you post something similar to this a while back? I can't remember what the subject was, but I do remember you writing about a supplier's responsibility to fix bugs, etc... if he is charging for the product.