phyllis@utcsrgv.UUCP (Phyllis Eve Bregman) (09/22/84)
( cat <bug >/dev/null )
I am posting this for David Fiedler; if you wish to reply, please
do so DIRECTLY to him. Thank you.
This is an open letter to Geoff Kuenning of Callan Data Systems, in
response to his response to a short rumor item that appeared in my
newsletter, UNIQUE.
------------------------------
Dear Geoff,
I received your email just before leaving for the USE/84 show
in Los Angeles and was therefore unable to respond until now.
It's surprising, when you are making public charges like "sloppy reporters",
"careless", and "totally false claim", that YOU didn't take your own advice
and make a simple phone call.
Unfortunately, you DIDN'T take the time to call me first (which would have
settled the whole matter in a much more friendly way),
but instead decided to attack us "in print" as it were, by posting our
original article and your response to three separate newsgroups on Usenet.
On receiving your initial email, I had decided to give you a great deal of
space in UNIQUE to respond directly. Your "jumping the gun" by not even
waiting for my reply, however, has put things in a different light, and I
feel I am forced to follow up by posting to the net as you did.
I might also mention that posting ANY direct quotations from UNIQUE as you
have done is a violation of applicable copyright laws, and I consider that
as serious as you would if I posted Callan-proprietary source code.
Let's settle one matter first. My source for all this information was NOT
published information by competitors of Callan as you imply, but an actual
live person who visited Callan and was told these things by Callan staff.
Part of the problem was that the material was cut out of the April issue
(you were right about that) due to space limitations, then appeared in
the very next issue, which covered a three-month span. That made some
of it "old news" to be sure.
Academically correct procedure dictates that I respond to the other things
point by point, so here goes:
1. I never denied that Callan was first with UNIX System V ("...they have had
UNIX System V since November..."). My source determined the first real
release was April, and that's what I printed. It may be that you and he/she
differ as to what constitutes a "real" release. I personally do not
consider a beta test release as a real, finished product. I also distinctly
remember not being able to compile and run any benchmarks at January 1984
Uniforum on the Callan, though the reason for this was not clear in my notes.
2. I agree with you that the engineering changes you mention don't seem to
alter the hardware "real" situation much. The "just going out the door"
message is how the original text was worded from my source. Again, the
publication delay was most likely responsible for the interpretation that
the timeframe was July rather than earlier.
3. A slip of the keyboard certainly produced I/O Data from Data I/O. Guilty
as charged for this point.
Of course, material that appears in "/dev/rumor" such as this is never intended to cause damage to any person or company. But we have often found that the
very act of "checking something out" with a company (when the information
could be interpreted as negative in any way) will produce an immediate,
knee-jerk denial from that company. For instance, we had a disagreement
with one software company a while back when we printed a rumor about their
upcoming contract with AT&T. The company put a great deal of pressure on us
to repudiate the story because they felt they would get in trouble with
AT&T as the contract was not yet public knowledge. Finally, they
announced the contract -- none too coyly, either. Pre-checking with the
company in such a situation tends to have a chilling effect on the news and
also puts us in the position of calling the company a liar right to their
face. This is something you accuse me of and which I did not, in fact, do.
Anyone who reads Usenet or trade publications is aware that things are
often announced before they're quite ready. This is considered standard
industry practice. I don't feel it's lying in your advertising or to your
customers to announce something in advance if it's expected by a certain
date. In fact, Callan has a good reputation in this regard. I checked out
your ads, and the Callan 300 with System V ad did not appear until January
1984. Considering the publication delay inherent in placing ads, this is
quite remarkably positive. Had the ads come out in August 1983, that still
wouldn't have been considered particularly sinister by the industry -- or
by me.
If we were to print EVERY rumor that comes our way, good or bad, it might
make more interesting reading but at the expense of accuracy. Not a week goes
by that we don't hear of numerous companies going out of business, or worse
(yes, worse). "Hearing" something generally doesn't qualify an item for our
rumor column, but a personal report is something else again. We don't make
it our business to become the "National Inquirer" of the computer industry,
yet UNIQUE performs a service by getting to the bottom of many issues. See
our articles on Multi Solutions, AT&T, and Cadmus. The companies involved
probably weren't entirely happy with the results, but I feel (and many of
our subscribers as well as people within the companies have agreed) that
these were fair and accurate reports.
Geoff, I'm not out to "get" you or Callan Data Systems. I happen to like
your company and their products. I've printed the results of at
least one interview with Dave Callan, and found him to be quite
straightforward and honest. My impression of you, based on other things
I've seen from you, is that you are also an honest and competent person.
However, I am also an honest and competent person, and note that you called
the article "totally false" on the net, while admitting that 3 out of the 5
points mentioned in the article were essentially correct.
I'm hoping that this exchange will clear the air and leave only
understanding of each other's positions.
Dave Fiedler
Editor, UNIQUE
{harpo,astrovax,philabs,whuxcc,clyde}!infopro!dave
--
Phyllis Eve Bregman
CSRI, Univ. of Toronto
{decvax,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,allegra,utzoo}!utcsrgv!phyllis
CSNET: phyllis@torontoleon@hhb.UUCP (Leon Gordon) (10/06/84)
[this line intentionally left non-blank] The subject article suggested that quoting an article verbatim in order to reply to it was a violation of applicable copyright laws. This is obviously absurd -- it would essentially eliminate printed debate ( after all why should an author give permission for the use of text by someone who disagrees with him). In fact, this sort of quote comes squarely in the domain of the "fair use" doctrine - upheld on frequent occasions in the context of reviews, editorials, etc. leon < the opinions expressed here may not belong to anyone including my employer....>