roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger Klorese) (11/05/85)
In article <491@enmasse.UUCP> dave@enmasse.UUCP (Dave Brownell) writes: >In article <8@i80386.UUCP> kds@i80386.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker) writes: >> First, thanks for all the offers of congratulations! Second, an apology >> for this note being a little late, I was out of town for a while, but as >> a result, unix has now been running on the 386 on 3 continents! > >***** FLAMES ON MEDIUM > >Looks like there's now a USENET machine dedicated to deluging us with >i80386 ADVERTISING. > >THERE IS NO REASON FOR MOST OF IT TO BE ON USENET. Only numbers 3 & 4 >are technical. Number 5 is also of interest to technoids. But the rest, >and the size, are suitable only for marketing pronouncements. This is not a TECHNICAL network. It is a USER'S network. I use UNIX-based machines in a technical AND marketing role - I'm a customer support representative. It's of interest to me. Get your head out of your white socks and penholder. Information is information, and for a poor merely-semi-techie like myself, it's more memorable and of more use sugar-coated than as YASSS (Yet Another Stupid Spec Sheet). Besides which, it should be the role of impartial folks - Livermore, Jack Dongarra, etc., to publish benchmarks. Anyone who believes vendor generated performance numbers deserves what they get. (Which, at the risk of over-marketing-hyping you, Celerity supplies the Livermore Loops and Argonne numbers, as well as a copy of Whetstone you can run YOURSELF on our system.) LIGHTEN UP. We don't ALL live in a world of MIPS, FIPS, WHIPS, DRIPS, and (most of all) dips. -- ... "What were you expecting, rock'n'roll?" Roger B.A. Klorese Celerity Computing, 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701, (617) 872-1772 UUCP: seismo!harvard!bu-cs!celtics!roger ARPA: celtics!roger@bu-cs.ARPA
freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) (11/07/85)
> This is not a TECHNICAL network. It is a USER'S network. I use > UNIX-based machines in a technical AND marketing role - I'm a customer > support representative. It's of interest to me. Get your head > out of your white socks and penholder. Information is information, > and for a poor merely-semi-techie like myself, it's more memorable > and of more use sugar-coated than as YASSS (Yet Another Stupid > Spec Sheet). > As one of the originators of this now rather over-winded series of flames, I take some of the blame for the rather non-useful nature of this discussion. It has however brought about at least my awareness of a gross mis-understanding of the netiquette of a *TECHNICAL* newgroup. This net is a forum for technical imformation and dialogue. There are a lot of people (me included) who read it with great interest and spend the *TIME* to read it because it has something which is not readily available in the HYPE we are bombarded with day and night by salesman and the media. In the article in question, there were gross violations of that spirit, most of the article could have been cut out. All of us can call Intel and get glossy brochures if we want to. Just as we, as Usenet readers, can object to poorly written and unverified articles, we can object to articles which should have been less hype and more insiders info. I don't care whether one person or 20 find it interesting. I for one can not stand *MORE* hype in my life. So if this kind of stuff is okay, you all are going to find the really knowledgable people unsubscribing and it will be your loss. They usually can barely justify the time as it is. I am sure that there are others that feel the same way. If we let Intel direct that stuff here then It is a precedent that will ruin what we have! So to the person from Intel; please keep on posting, just watch your hype we don't need it. We do however welcome insider's info with great glee. Sorry for the waste this discussion has called. imformed, just keep it relevant and -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed