kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (08/04/88)
Has anyone else noticed in the "Letters to the editor" and other sections of BYTE a certain tendency to print articles flattering to the IBMPC and unflattering to all other machines, particularly non PC-compatibles? Now I am an amiga owner, and of course the amiga is the most perfect machine in the universe and all that partisan sh*t, but I just can't believe the cheap shots Byte takes at the Amiga are purely unintentional. In fact, during the time the amiga was starting up, Byte was quite schizophrenic, with excellent and complimentary technical articles, in the same issue with nasty editorial jabs and letters to the editor containing incorrect, unchecked, unedited gripes and whines with no rebuttal from Commodore. Oh, and on the subject of editorial balance. My favorite is the "OS/2 -- Multitasking At Last" theme we're seeing recently. Maybe they don't know you could multitask on a $200 machine (RadioShack CoCo) as much as four or five years ago, or on an amiga three years ago, or run real UNIX (is SYSIII real?) six years ago. But WHY DON'T THEY KNOW? Has not one of their editors ever seen another computer than the IBMPC? I admit it. The only reason I subscribe to Byte is to read the ads and keep up on the computer market and general industry stuff. I read maybe five articles a year. But nowadays I can't even see ads for a wide variety of computers. I might as well give up.
munck@linus.UUCP (Robert Munck) (08/05/88)
Gotta agree with you. Plus they're losing Steve Ciarcia and continue
to have the old problems like Pournelle telling us how wonderful he is
and how wonderful are the products of whatever company his son happens
to be working for now. Well, they've got good company for their trip
down the toilet: Popular Electronics, the old CoCo magazine (can't even
remember its name), Electronics, most ACM publications, Apartment Life,
Look, Colliers, ... (getting a bit afield here.) Boy's Life,...
Fortunately, good new mags come along all the time too. Micro/systems,
Circuits Ink, the Victoria's Secret catalog, ...
-- Bob Munckdaveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/09/88)
in article <37928@linus.UUCP>, munck@linus.UUCP (Robert Munck) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.misc:3350 comp.arch:6141 > Well, they've got good company for their trip down the toilet: Popular > Electronics, the old CoCo magazine (can't even remember its name), Electronics, > most ACM publications, Apartment Life, Look, Colliers, ... (getting a bit > afield here.) Boy's Life,... > Fortunately, good new mags come along all the time too. Micro/systems, ... Personally, I think Micro/Systems is getting ready for the flushing ceremony too. Back when it was "Micro/Systems Journal For the Advanced Computer User", it wasn't bad, if a little on the thin side. That was only last year. Now it's "Micro/Systems Journal For the PC Systems Integrator", and doesn't seem to care all that much about the advanced computer user. I guess it's not completely useless yet; I usually find an interesting article or two per issue (as opposed to 0, on the average, in today's BYTE). Dr. Dobbs is in the same category these days; it's almost useful enough to keep, but I probably wouldn't miss it if I stopped subscribing. I read Dobbs years ago when it was really good, then stopped for awhile. I started up again when it was one of the optional replacement rags for the remaining 2.5 years on my Creative Computing subscription. And it's been steadily drifting downhill. Like BYTE, it wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't read it in it's better days. There's probably still some hope for Dr. Dobbs and Micro/Systems, though. BYTE is certainly lost for all times. > -- Bob Munck -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
lim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kian-Tat Lim) (08/29/88)
From BYTE, September 1988, Letters column, p. 24, for your edification and amusement: Rave Review I am not a subscriber to any personal computer magazine, although I pick one up occasionally. I want you to know that from the few BYTEs I've picked up, I have been impressed with your articles on numeric methods and calculations methods [sic]. I just read "Error-Free Fractions" by Peter Wayner (June). This was something completely new to me, even though I have taken a course on numeric analysis and my occupation as an engineer requires me to deal with numerically intensive applications. BYTE seems to be unique among personal computing magazines in carrying such articles, and the articles that I have read intensively seem to reflect the state of the art. I hope you continue to carry such articles and continue the same high quality. It makes your magazine a standout among personal computer magazines. James Larson Minneapolis, MN -- Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)
exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer) (08/29/88)
Has anybody seen the latest issue of Byte? I was searching long and hard for some redeeming social value in that magazine the other night when I started to glance through Pournelle's column.... and the bastard basically said that Un*x was good for nothing except poorly written multi-user databases. His biggest complaint was that Un*x couldn't run a lot of his MS-DOS applications well enough (two products were mentioned, I think). Did he mention that Un*x doesn't do graphics or color?? I seem to recall something about that but I cannot remember. --Greg -- Greg Onufer GEnie: G.ONUFER University of the Pacific UUCP: -= Focus Semiconductor =- exodus@mfgfoc ...!sun!daver!mfgfoc!exodus (and postmaster/exodus@uop.edu) AT&T: 415-965-0604 USMAIL: #901 1929 Crisanto Ave, Mtn View, CA 94040
john@jclyde.UUCP (John B. Meaders Jr.) (08/30/88)
In article <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer) writes: >Has anybody seen the latest issue of Byte? I was searching long and hard >for some redeeming social value in that magazine the other night when I >started to glance through Pournelle's column.... and the bastard basically >said that Un*x was good for nothing except poorly written multi-user >databases. His biggest complaint was that Un*x couldn't run a lot of his >MS-DOS applications well enough (two products were mentioned, I think). > >Did he mention that Un*x doesn't do graphics or color?? I seem to recall >something about that but I cannot remember. I've waited awhile before flaming BYTE, but here goes. I used to love reading Pournelle's column, it was the highlight of my reading the magazine. That love affair ended sometime early this year or late last year, due to some Pournelle bashing on the net. At first I bristled at somebody flaming Jerry, but I got to thinking. Ever since, when I read his column I usually think what a TWIT this guy is. He wouldn't know a decent operating system if it bit him on the ass. I have already made my decision to let my subscription lapse. I get my PC stuff out of PC Magazine (which has its share of jerk-off contributors, read that as Dvorak), but on whole it keeps me abreast of the PC world and I *expect* it to be Messy-DOS heavy. My favorite computer mag now is Unix World. Oh well... the ramblings of another irate Byte reader (soon to be former). Hey Pournelle, stick it in your ear (and you too Dvorak) :-). Now I can't wait to get out of school and earn some money so I can retire this 286 box to running games and buy a *real* system :-). -- John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 UUCP: ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!jclyde!john or john@jclyde.UUCP
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (08/30/88)
In article <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer) writes:
: Has anybody seen the latest issue of Byte? I was searching long and hard
: for some redeeming social value in that magazine the other night when I
: started to glance through Pournelle's column.... and the bastard basically
: said that Un*x was good for nothing except poorly written multi-user
: databases. His biggest complaint was that Un*x couldn't run a lot of his
: MS-DOS applications well enough (two products were mentioned, I think).
No: his biggest complaint was that he had various things he
wanted to do, that *only* his MS-DOS applications would do these
things well, and Unix wouldn't run those programs.
You have misrepresented him. So here, in his own words, he is:
"There may be a good "DOS under Unix" system somwhere out
there, but I guarantee you I don't have one, or if I do
have it, the instructions on installation are beyond my
ken. What I've got is a Unix that can -- sometimes --
run some DOS programs, provided that the DOS programs are
*very* well behaved...
Of course, I can also run standard Unix programs, but why
bother? All the Unix programs that do the things I want
to do have been pretty small potatoes compared to what's
available on DOS. Sure, Unix has unique features. If
you have a real need for multiuser access to a very large
database, Unix is fine. If you've simply got to have a
bunch of users working off one central system, it's
wonderful. There are things Unix can dp that DOS
wouldn't dream of. On the other hand, most Unix
application programs are very vanilla in features (for
example, almost no Unix program knows anout color), they
are overpriced, and hard to use. I've looked at a dozen
or more Unix application programs, and for the kind of
work I do, there aren't any that I'd prefer to what I
have on DOS (and for that matter, I had better word
processors and accounting programs on CP/M than the stuff
Unix users put up with). Most PC users will not care to
give up what they have on DOS for what they can get from
Unix.
This whole situation puzzles me. I've had a dozen people
try to explain why you can't simply fire up Unix and use
it as the master operating system to run multiple DOS
programs, and the usual answer is `You can, but nobody's
done it.' None of them can answer the next question."
First, for those of you who don't know: Jerry Pournelle is a
*computer user*. He is not a data entry clerk, nor a computer
programmer. He is a guy that uses a computer to get a job done.
He knows a little about programming, but he makes no claim to
being a professional. All he cares about is: "What can a
computer do for me?"
I, as a computer professional, read his column religiously. No,
I do not like much of what he writes. It is boring and chatty.
But, when it comes down to it, *he* (and his kin) pays my
salary. So, when he bitches, I listen.
So, let's look at the substance of his complaints:
1) There does not seem to exist a good way to run
arbitrary DOS programs on a Unix box. Or more than
one of them at a time, as a good Unix ought to.
2) The Unix applications he wants to use are weak
compared to DOS applications. For that matter, in
word processing and accounting, they are weak compared
to CP/M applications.
3) Unix can do some wonderful things, but not the things
he wants to do.
4) Unix applications are overpriced.
5) Unix applications are hard to use.
6) He implies that Unix system administration is
unnecessarily complex.
Well, how many of you want to defend Unix against these
complaints? Of them, 1) and maybe 6) seems to have changed with
the introduction of the 386i; the other things are still
more-or-less true, and until the price of Unix based DOS
application equivalents becomes reasonable, will remain
relevant.
While *I* wouldn't use DOS for anything at all, if I could avoid
it, I agree completely with him that, for a person whose sole
interest is what, of the things *he* wants to do, he can
accomplish, Unix is not the right system.
---
Bill
novavax!proxftl!billchuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) (09/01/88)
In article <674@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer) writes: >: Has anybody seen the latest issue of Byte? I was searching long and hard >: for some redeeming social value in that magazine the other night when I >: started to glance through Pournelle's column.... and the bastard basically >: said that Un*x was good for nothing except poorly written multi-user >: databases. His biggest complaint was that Un*x couldn't run a lot of his >: MS-DOS applications well enough (two products were mentioned, I think). [Greg quotes Jerry Pournelle's article and then summerizes Jerry's complaints about Unix] > > 1) There does not seem to exist a good way to run > arbitrary DOS programs on a Unix box. Or more than > one of them at a time, as a good Unix ought to. So the analogy is... Hehe.. Lets run that MacPaint on a PC. I know it should work. :-) (seriously though, wait until XDOS hits the market for 680x0, or VP/ix or Merge on a i386 with an MMU that tame the little monsters written for those PC's). > 2) The Unix applications he wants to use are weak > compared to DOS applications. For that matter, in > word processing and accounting, they are weak compared > to CP/M applications. Jerry just doesn't know what he's talking about as far as quality of WP and accounting. He just pick a couple of lousy vendors who couldn't port thier aps to unix. > 3) Unix can do some wonderful things, but not the things > he wants to do. And so he doen't use unix, and that's good. God_for_bid if he had a USENET node. Or even an experienced unix user. :-) > 4) Unix applications are overpriced. > 5) Unix applications are hard to use. > 6) He implies that Unix system administration is > unnecessarily complex. > >Well, how many of you want to defend Unix against these >complaints? It sure beats a network of PCs! Have you ever seen one of those boys adminsitered properly and used with any success. And like I'm sure Jerry has a 20 user PC-Network to do word processing and bought WRITE (or what ever it is now) for all 20 Machines. My Quote: "One processor! 20 Dumb users!" :-) "A qualifier, 20 dumb user! 1 per MIP" :-) >While *I* wouldn't use DOS for anything at all, if I could avoid >it, ... I do avoid it. My PC/286 at home runs UNIX only! Even if I only balance my checkbook with it. I just wish Jerry would compare oranges to oranges. >--- >Bill >novavax!proxftl!bill
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (09/01/88)
It's the old market segmentation CuisinArt again...Too many MBA's and not enough reporters and editors. It goes like this. A company buys ad space to show off a product...let's say an MS/DOS computer. They want to have the biggest possible audience and have the most bang for their ad buck. BYTE naturally wants to oblige them -- it's how they make money. If they target MS/DOS heavily, it makes this customer happier and the customer buys bigger and more frequent ads. There's a lot of MS/DOS customers in the world, and the MBA's say "if we focus on this market segment, we can attract more of this business. Revenues will go up up up. All those other market segments are too small to bother with anyway." For awhile it works. New MS/DOS customers buy more and bigger ads. Revenue goes up. The MBA's are "right". Oh sure they lose a few clients with oddball machines, but it's nothing compared to the new business. They can't sell ad space fast enough, and they don't even need so many articles. Funny thing though, all those readers who liked BYTE's former ecclectic collection of topics begin to defect. Circulation begins to suffer. Guys with big ads in BYTE are also getting calls from PC Week, PC World, PC News, PC Today, and all those other PC mags. They only do MS/DOS, and their ads are cheaper. In fact, they have BETTER MS/DOS coverage. Now BYTE has to compete with specialists, but they are losing circulation. It's hard to get people enthused to make (expensive) editorial improvements when you are losing money. Things are going wrong for the MBA's, and they don't understand why their rote-memorized axioms (that got 'em an A on the final exam) aren't working. So they do what anyone would do. Sell out quick while BYTE still looks good on a resume' and go off to PC News and Clone Report with the client list. What MBA's never learn is that it is the technical contributors who make any business a success. BYTE's success was in it's techical content. Maybe the buyers will understand that. McGraw Hill is on the block. Probably a good thing. Kurt Guntheroth
chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) (09/01/88)
In article <5040@fluke.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: >What MBA's never learn is that it is the technical contributors who make any >business a success. BYTE's success was in it's techical content. I'm not sure if this scenario is real. I say this because I've seen no circulation numbers that say Byte is losing. But, gawsh, the parallels between this scenario and Electronics are pretty striking. The current IEEE Spectrum has a very interesting and nostalgic article on the rise and fall (and rise and fall and...) of Electronics. -- Chip Rosenthal chip@vector.UUCP | I've been a wizard since my childhood. Dallas Semiconductor 214-450-0486 | And I've earned some respect for my art.
slf@well.UUCP (Sharon Lynne Fisher) (09/02/88)
>>What MBA's never learn is that it is the technical contributors who make any >>business a success. BYTE's success was in it's techical content. >I'm not sure if this scenario is real. I say this because I've seen no >circulation numbers that say Byte is losing. Maybe the circulation isn't losing, but the ad sales are definitely losing in a big way. (I can post figures if people are interested.) And a magazine cannot survive based on its circulation. Subscription money is gravy. It's the ads that pay the bills.
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (09/03/88)
in article <536@vector.UUCP>, chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) says: > The current IEEE Spectrum has a very interesting and nostalgic > article on the rise and fall (and rise and fall and...) of Electronics. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Improper bus termination strikes again! -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (09/03/88)
In article <674@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer) writes: >You have misrepresented him. So here, in his own words, he is: > This whole situation puzzles me. I've had a dozen people > try to explain why you can't simply fire up Unix and use > it as the master operating system to run multiple DOS > programs, and the usual answer is `You can, but nobody's > done it.' None of them can answer the next question." [that was Pournelle, this is Bill] > 1) There does not seem to exist a good way to run > arbitrary DOS programs on a Unix box. Or more than > one of them at a time, as a good Unix ought to. >Of them, 1) seems to have changed with >the introduction of the 386i; First, I must point out that I am slightly biased (working for a company that sells what I'm talking about tends to influence my words 8-)). Under XENIX '386 (whatever release it is; I forget exactly which version has a good vpix support), you can run multiple copies of VP/ix, which is, basicly, an '86 emulator (using the V86 mode) (as opposed to just an MS-DOS emulator). I have run multiple copies of DOS-based programs, and, while I don't want to hack on the code for it, I don't mind using VP/ix (at least, I dislike using it as much as I dislike using DOS, so I guess it's just as good as MS-DOS 8-)). >novavax!proxftl!bill -- Sean Eric Fagan | "An Amdahl mainframe is lots faster than a Vax 750." seanf@sco.UUCP | -- Charles Simmons (chuck@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com) (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
karl@sugar.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (09/03/88)
In article <674@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes
a reasoned defense of Pournelle, claiming that Jerry's Unix slams were
pretty valid, which in this case I agree that they pretty much were.
Nonetheless, Jerry is *notorious* for taking cheap shots. I recall a Byte
article several years ago in which he wrote something like "CP/M slays Unix.
Unix? Why would I want Unix? See, I just got this really neat *CP/M shell*,
and it provides a lot of Unix-like utilities."
Ever since his mad friend MacLean died, he hasn't had anyone technically
competent whom he trusts to advise him. In the old days, he would write a
lot of stupid stuff but also write what his mad friend said, like "Jerry,
just because this Pascal you've tried has crummy error messages doesn't
mean Pascal sucks. You are confusing the language with its implementation."
(He still hasn't figured that one out.)
Want some more? How about his new thing that each application should
have its own processor? He doesn't want his communications program stealing
cycles from his CPU, so he wants it implemented as an intelligent board.
I trust most readers can see the problem: the comm program's processor's
cycles can only be used by the comm program; one doesn't gain aggregate
CPU power nearly to the extent one would under more general multiprocessing
or just by spending the money on a faster system.
One other thing, Bill Wells points out that Jerry *uses computers*, not
just plays with or programs them, but I think he's a pretty narrow user
(not to say that most aren't), mostly using the machines to do word
processing, and generalizing that view to dismiss or criticize solutions
to applications he doesn't understand (e.g. bashing multiuser systems).
Don't forget that this guy also has a weekly column in Info World, and he
writes a lot of crap there, too, possibly to greater effect.
--
--
-- uunet!sugar!karl, +1 713 274 5184slf@well.UUCP (Sharon Lynne Fisher) (09/05/88)
>Don't forget that this guy also has a weekly column in Info World, and he >writes a lot of crap there, too, possibly to greater effect. You should see it before we edit it. Many of the people who work for InfoWorld don't care for the column either -- read the headlines carefully some time, and you'll notice they're often kinda snide -- but it's very, very popular with our readers. (He nearly got lynched over his column about how women weren't having enough babies...and a couple of coworkers and I nearly killed him at dinner last Comdex when he said our husbands were "wimps" for helping with the laundry.)
jones@ingr.UUCP (Mark Jones) (09/06/88)
> Maybe the circulation isn't losing, but the ad sales are definitely losing > in a big way. (I can post figures if people are interested.) And a > magazine cannot survive based on its circulation. Subscription money is > gravy. It's the ads that pay the bills. Ok, Lets see them!
gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) (09/07/88)
In article <7031@well.UUCP> slf@well.UUCP (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes: > >>Don't forget that this guy also has a weekly column in Info World, and he >>writes a lot of crap there, too, possibly to greater effect. > >You should see it before we edit it. > ...and a couple of coworkers and >I nearly killed him at dinner last Comdex when he said our husbands were >"wimps" for helping with the laundry.) Interesting! After _all_ the Byte-bashing that's been going on, and reported uploads to BIX (who cares if its trade-marked?), _not one word_ from BYTE. But we make _one_ mention of Info-World, and, voila!, a response. Maybe not offical, maybe from only a off-duty staffer, BUT a response non-the-less. It appears to me that we are indeed right about BYTE's opinion of its readership And it further looks like maybe it's time to go out a buy a copy of Info-world and see what kind of a rag _it_ is these days. Subscribe BYTE > Info-world? directed to the respondeant from Info=world: When will the magazine be available on-line? You _must_ be using WPs, probably get most of your articles electronically (don't you?), probably send it to the printers electronically? Why not post it, too? The discussion here should have convinced you that there is interest. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still working on _natural_ intelligence. gary@percival (...!tektronix!percival!gary)
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (09/08/88)
In article <444@coplex.UUCP> chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) writes: : In article <674@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: : >In article <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer) writes: : >: Has anybody seen the latest issue of Byte? I was searching long and hard : >: for some redeeming social value in that magazine the other night when I : >: started to glance through Pournelle's column.... and the bastard basically : >: said that Un*x was good for nothing except poorly written multi-user : >: databases. His biggest complaint was that Un*x couldn't run a lot of his : >: MS-DOS applications well enough (two products were mentioned, I think). : : [Greg quotes Jerry Pournelle's article and then summerizes Jerry's : complaints about Unix] Excuse me, but those are *my* words. Please be more careful with your attributions. : > 1) There does not seem to exist a good way to run : > arbitrary DOS programs on a Unix box. Or more than : > one of them at a time, as a good Unix ought to. : : So the analogy is... Hehe.. Lets run that MacPaint on a PC. I know : it should work. :-) It's a bad analogy, because no one was promising him that he could run MacPaint. They *were* promising him that he could run MS-DOS applications. I guess the right way for him to have phrase the complaint is "they LIED to me!" : (seriously though, wait until XDOS hits the : market for 680x0, or VP/ix or Merge on a i386 with an MMU that tame : the little monsters written for those PC's). I hear that these already exist. I may be very disappointed if the machine that I am getting (a 386 from either Wyse or Zenith) can't run certain MS-DOS applications. : > 2) The Unix applications he wants to use are weak : > compared to DOS applications. For that matter, in : > word processing and accounting, they are weak compared : > to CP/M applications. : : Jerry just doesn't know what he's talking about as far as quality of : WP and accounting. He just pick a couple of lousy vendors who couldn't : port thier aps to unix. That might be true, but *I* haven't seen UNIX applications that are comparable to the MS-DOS versions, and I *live* on UNIX. I hear that several of the major vendors are doing ports though. (Brief on a Sun? That would be nice.) If you know of really good applications, with user interfaces comparable with the best PC applications, I'd like to know of them. : > 3) Unix can do some wonderful things, but not the things : > he wants to do. : : And so he doen't use unix, and that's good. God_for_bid if he had : a USENET node. Or even an experienced unix user. :-) I hear that he used to be on ARPA. I have no idea why he isn't any longer. : > 4) Unix applications are overpriced. : > 5) Unix applications are hard to use. : > 6) He implies that Unix system administration is : > unnecessarily complex. : > : >Well, how many of you want to defend Unix against these : >complaints? : : It sure beats a network of PCs! Have you ever seen one of those : boys adminsitered properly and used with any success. Well, the guys over in our medical group have one, and they use that in preference to our Sun! (Don't ask me why, I never *did* get a comprehensible answer.) : >While *I* wouldn't use DOS for anything at all, if I could avoid : >it, ... : : I do avoid it. My PC/286 at home runs UNIX only! Even if I only balance : my checkbook with it. I'm stuck with it. Not only is my terminal an AT (running over the ethernet to our Sun), but I have to port my stuff to PC's. Uck. --- Bill novavax!proxftl!bill
u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) (09/08/88)
It was written: > Maybe the circulation isn't losing, but the ad sales are definitely losing > in a big way. So I ask: Why then has my Byte Deck got thicker? Why are there more ads in each magazine? Why are there so many ads that they give suppliments just to put ads in? Why is it that better circulation means higher costs for advertisers? Doesn't the demand for larger circulation play a big part (not the only) to drive the ad prices up? I'd like to see those numbers too. Not just the numbers that show something about how Byte has x less revenue, or y less advertisments, but the ones that show how Byte is different from other magazines because it is losing while others are not. I'd also like to see some speculation about *why* the ads are (as alleged) losing. I'm not affiliated with Byte. I've subscribed since August of 1977. I find Byte to be one of the finer magazines I read. (Yes, I do read a number of other technical magazines.) It's going to take alot to convince me that a strong, healthy, well established, and widely read journal like Byte is edging toward the shreader of death.
u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) (09/08/88)
In article <1355@percival.UUCP> gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) writes: > >Interesting! After _all_ the Byte-bashing that's been going on, and reported >uploads to BIX (who cares if its trade-marked?), _not one word_ from BYTE. > >But we make _one_ mention of Info-World, and, voila!, a response. Maybe not >offical, maybe from only a off-duty staffer, BUT a response non-the-less. This shows nothing about the magazines. This only shows the demographics of the audience. > >It appears to me that we are indeed right about BYTE's opinion of its readership >And it further looks like maybe it's time to go out a buy a copy of Info-world >and see what kind of a rag _it_ is these days. May I offer an alternative scenario: BYTE's staffers are unconcerned with our dribble here. They know fluff when they see it. Info-World on the other hand perhaps has to fight hard any where it can or maybe by conincidence an employee from Info-World read it. The thought that we on the net are really representative of either of the magazines is naive at best. Show me something that says we are representative, and I'll have to modify my stance. By the way, I would think my response would at least equal if not outweight the Info-World guy as far as testimonials go. [Of course the vanity within me *has* to say that. :-)] I am not afiliated with byte. If the Info-World guy isn't with Info-World, our testimonials are prima-facia equal. If the guy is a staffer, then he can hardly be considered objective.
slf@well.UUCP (Sharon Lynne Fisher) (09/08/88)
>When will the magazine be available on-line? You _must_ be using WPs, probably >get most of your articles electronically (don't you?), probably send it to the >printers electronically? Why not post it, too? The discussion here should >have convinced you that there is interest. I don't know if the whole magazine will ever be on line. There has been talk about putting the reviews on line. For as long as I've been there (2 years), there has been talk of an Infoworld bulletin board; *yesterday* someone was put in charge of that project, so we may see it in our lifetimes. Actually, we don't use PCs for word processing; we use a Vax with a system called Atex, designed for journalists. We have these big ugly clunky terminals but they're wonderful for our work. But it means there's all sorts of weird characters and stuff in there to indicate headlines, etc. (It's only semi- WYSIWYG.) I believe you when you say there's interest in posting it. However, I'm the only one, as far as I can tell, at Infoworld who's really into bulletin boards and so on. (I'm almost positive I'm the only one on the net.) That makes sense -- I'm the communications editor. But I haven't been able to get much interest in using the bulletin boards more.
sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) (09/09/88)
In article <1355@percival.UUCP> gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) writes:
...
<directed to the respondeant from Info=world:
<
<When will the magazine be available on-line? You _must_ be using WPs, probably
<get most of your articles electronically (don't you?), probably send it to the
<printers electronically? Why not post it, too? The discussion here should
<have convinced you that there is interest.
Publishers will probably also want to include electronic versions of
advertisements. Please do, and index them. The advertisers will like our
being able to easily find their ad when we're looking for a 3720 doozit.
--
Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco
Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco
"Space is big / Space is dark / It's hard to find / a place to park" - P. daS.peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/09/88)
In article <5708@utah-cs.UUCP>, u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) writes: > BYTE's staffers are unconcerned with our dribble here. They know fluff > when they see it. This statement would carry more weight if Byte didn't carry Jerry Pournelle. The man (who is now operating under the banner of 'expert advice') is incapable of producing anything but fluff. > If the Info-World guy isn't with Info-World, our testimonials > are prima-facia equal. > If the guy is a staffer, then he can hardly be considered objective. Damned if he is and damned if he isn't, eh? -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" peter@ficc.uu.net
slf@well.UUCP (Sharon Lynne Fisher) (09/09/88)
>hard any where it can or maybe by conincidence an employee from Info-World >read it. This is actually pretty true. I don't usually read this group, but I heard about a discussion on Byte, so I wanted to read it. >If the Info-World guy isn't with Info-World, our testimonials... >If the guy is a staffer, then he can hardly be considered objective... The InfoWorld "guy" isn't a guy, thank you very much.
gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) (09/10/88)
In article <5708@utah-cs.UUCP> u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) writes: >May I offer an alternative scenario: >BYTE's staffers are unconcerned with our dribble here. They know fluff >when they see it. Info-World on the other hand perhaps has to fight >hard any where it can or maybe by conincidence an employee from Info-World >read it. Dribble? I _hope_ you are wearing your flame-proof suit the next time you check your mailbox! I don't know about you, but I consider myself an above average computer user. I base this assessment on my knowledge of and ability to use computers. I use several different brands, different OS's, and have been messing with these beasts for some 20 years now. I grew up with BYTE, as a matter of fact. The dollar value of the computer equipment in my basement is approximately equal to the dollar value I paid for my house (many years ago), and would probably serve the needs of a small African nation. I think you'll find that I am not atypical of the net-users. Sure, we have a few, prolific, "dribble" (try drivel, I think it's closer to what you mean) mongers on the net. Byte has Pournelle, so we're even. Fluff? Write a letter to Byte for us. Ask them how to interface brand x disk to brand y computer. Ask them for a bug-fix on your latest piece of software. And, in the same letter, ask them for the latest Shuttle schedule, _and_ an update on the gravity experiments in Greenland. In six months, when your letter _isn't_ published in the Letters column, check the net. I think you're main problem is that you're not subscribed to right groups. >The thought that we on the net are really representative of either >of the magazines is naive at best. Show me something that says we are >representative, and I'll have to modify my stance. > We aren't representitive of the Magazines, but they are supposed to be representitive of _us_. They are not, which is the point of this thread. >By the way, I would think my response would at least equal >if not outweight the Info-World guy as far as testimonials go. You represent the 2nd vote in favor of Byte, as opposed to a lot against anybody kept track?). Info-world _wasn't_ a testimonial, and I think it was a "she", not a "he". The point was not that it was a testimonial, but that it was a _response_ that could be identified with the publication. BYTE has not done the same. THAT is the point. >I am not afiliated with byte. Again proving the point, BYTE doesn't care, even if its readers do. >If the Info-World guy isn't with Info-World, our testimonials >are prima-facia equal. >If the guy is a staffer, then he can hardly be considered objective. If you want objectivity, better get off the net. We are a HIGHLY opionionated group, on almost every subject. That's WHY other people ask us for advice... we have the knowledge and the facts to back up our opinions, thanks to the net. And that is ALSO why I (and apparently the net in general) thinks that BYTE (and other) magazines should represent themselves here. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still working on _natural_ intelligence. gary@percival (...!tektronix!percival!gary)
u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) (09/10/88)
In article <1435@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <5708@utah-cs.UUCP>, u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP > (Daniel M Floyd) writes: >> If the Info-World guy isn't with Info-World, our testimonials >> are prima-facia equal. >> If the guy is a staffer, then he can hardly be considered objective. > >Damned if he is and damned if he isn't, eh? Nope! I said in the first instance our testimonials carried equal weight in the argument. I don't consider myself damned in this case. Just the same weight in evidence. In the second case, he could have superior knowledge about Info-World and related items; however, his conclusions still cannot be considered ojective. That doesn't mean an objective person wouldn't arive at his conclusions. Are we clear on this now?
u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) (09/10/88)
In article <1357@percival.UUCP> gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) writes: >In article <5708@utah-cs.UUCP> u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) writes: >>May I offer an alternative scenario: >>BYTE's staffers are unconcerned with our dribble here. They know fluff >>when they see it. Info-World on the other hand perhaps has to fight >>hard any where it can or maybe by conincidence an employee from Info-World >>read it. > >Dribble? I _hope_ you are wearing your flame-proof suit the next time you >check your mailbox! Nope. I keep a fire extinguisher in hand every time I read the net or read mail. I also keep my flamethrower nearby for special occasions. 8) Go ahead netland...hmmm...Clint Eastwood flicks pop to mind. 8) >I don't know about you, but I consider myself an above average >computer user. ...[some interesting credentials]... >...[you may find that] I am not atypical of the net-users. I think you're right. I feel I'm one of those above average people. Below average have too much dificulty loging on, much less actually contributing anything. (Of course there are exceptions.) The majority of people I've dealt with on the net, know quite a bit about certain subjects. >Sure, we have a few, prolific, >"dribble" (try drivel, I think it's closer to what you mean) mongers on >the net. Byte has Pournelle, so we're even. Oops! Right again. Drivel! My brains neurons must have droped a bit. 8) >Fluff? Write a letter to Byte for us. ...[advice on what to include in >the letter]...I think you're main >problem is that you're not subscribed to right groups. It was only an alternative suggestion. And, they *might* consider attacks on them here "fluff". No problem here. I've got lot's of good news groups. Thank you. 8) You're point is a good one. Byte simply doesn't respond the way the net does. >We aren't representitive of the Magazines, but they are supposed to be >representitive of _us_. They are not, which is the point of this thread. Yes. Representitive of our interests. Of *us*, no. Perhaps Byte is too big to cover everyone's interests like you want. >>By the way, I would think my response would at least equal >>if not outweight the Info-World guy as far as testimonials go. > >You represent the 2nd vote in favor of Byte, as opposed to a lot against >anybody kept track?). Info-world _wasn't_ a testimonial, and I think >it was "she", not a "he". The fact that I am the 2nd vote here only says something about the net, not Byte. (I'm reiterating. I know.) She? My appologies. I didn't take note of the name, and gender is so hard to tell with typed words. Maybe she should use a feminine font. 8) >The point was not that it was a testimonial, but that it was a _response_ >that could be identified with the publication. BYTE has not done the same. >THAT is the point. Point well taken. (Too bad my flame-proof suit isn't puncture-proof. 8) ) >>I am not afiliated with byte. >Again proving the point, BYTE doesn't care, even if its readers do. ^^^^^^^ Nope. It's just supporting evidence. >If you want objectivity, better get off the net. We are a HIGHLY opionionated >group, on almost every subject. That's WHY other people ask us for advice... >we have the knowledge and the facts to back up our opinions, thanks to the net. >And that is ALSO why I (and apparently the net in general) thinks that BYTE >(and other) magazines should represent themselves here. Oh no! Not the net. Take my newspaper instead. 8) You're right WE are opionionated. Worse yet, I'm being persuaded toward your opinion (*gasp*). 8) Byte is far from dead, but your arguments so far have been, for the most part, on the major issues, reasonable.
dricej@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson) (09/11/88)
For what it's worth, anybody can read from the masthead that Byte has in
the last year gotten a new Publisher and a new Editor. This has changed
the appearance of the magazine significantly. Some like it, some don't.
(I think it's neat that, in the past, Byte has been an acceptable citation
for a refereed paper. I don't think the present articles will be cited much.)
I also have heard the new Byte management being congratulated on increased
advertising revenue.
--
Craig Jackson
UUCP: {harvard!axiom,linus!axiom,ll-xn}!drilex!dricej
BIX: cjacksonpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/13/88)
Since the comments by the InfoWorld staffer were not about Byte or about InfoWorld, but rather about Jerry Pournelle... a columnist who writes for both papers, I think that they can be considered objective. Since this person also sees Jerry's articles before they're cleaned up, I think they carry more weight than those of the person who flamed about her. Particularly since the guy who was doing the flaming had clearly never read the message she wrote. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" peter@ficc.uu.net
u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) (09/17/88)
In article <1461@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Since the comments by the InfoWorld staffer were not about Byte or about >InfoWorld, but rather about Jerry Pournelle... a columnist who writes for >both papers, I think that they can be considered objective. Since this person >also sees Jerry's articles before they're cleaned up, I think they carry >more weight than those of the person who flamed about her. Particularly >since the guy who was doing the flaming had clearly never read the message >she wrote. No, no, no. I am the guy refered to here. I was *not* flaming her at all. I was not flaming anyone at the time. However, Mr. Peter da Silva may now consider himself publicly flamed, (by a candle) to a *small* degree (it isn't even a first degree burn), for looking for a flame in a relatively benign article. We do not have to flame each other when we disagree. My intent was just that, to disagree and discuss. Correct, I did not read her posting. I didn't need to because I did not reply to her posting. I replied to the guy who was extolling the virtues of InfoWorld based on her message. She may very well be objective, but for presenting evidence in favor of InfoWorld, her comments, whatever they were, can't be considered objective because she works for InfoWorld. I also read a reply that the extoller meant that her message content wasn't the evidence he was presenting, the fact there was *any* comment from InfoWorld weighed in favor of InfoWorld. To this, I say, no, that still doesn't do it. She, herself, wrote that she only replied by chance so to speak. Therefore, again this does not show the responsiveness of InfoWorld. Can we count on more from InfoWorld? What if she were fired, or died (god forbid)? Then how could we be certain InfoWorld would respond? As far as I know, neither magazine has any staff assigned to respond on this net. If not so, let's here it from *that* magazine assigned staffer. Sharon, the InfoWorld staffer, *can* be considered an expert witness. She cannot be considered objective, especially about Pournelle. Again, she *may* be objective. I am only talking about how to weigh the evidence presented for ourselves. Find an expert not employed or benefited by Byte, InfoWorld, or Pournelle, and show them the literature. This expert could be consider objective. I'll concede that Sharon's view may carry more weight in some respects; this isn't because of objectivity, however, it's because of her expert status. (Please forgive me if that's not her name. I didn't write it down. Sharon, please e-flame-mail me again if it's not.) Also, there was a note to the effect that if I wanted objectivity, I should look elsewhere. That same posting stated that net people are highly opinionated and that people come to the net because we have the "...facts to back up our opinions." By questioning the objectivity of the evidence, I thought I'd get a few more facts to back up the plethora of opinions. Dan Floyd 8<D=
slf@well.UUCP (Sharon Lynne Fisher) (09/18/88)
>To this, I say, no, that still doesn't do it. She, herself, wrote that >she only replied by chance so to speak. Therefore, again this does >not show the responsiveness of InfoWorld. Can we count on more >from InfoWorld? What if she were fired, or died (god forbid)? Then >how could we be certain InfoWorld would respond? As far as I know, >neither magazine has any staff assigned to respond on this net. If I were fired, or died (or quit, which is another option), I can pretty much guarantee that you'd never hear another peep out of InfoWorld. There is another staffer here who does use the Net a teensy bit, but he doesn't have the time or the inclination to hang out here. Actually, if I were fired or quit, you'd still hear from me -- I just wouldn't be a representative of InfoWorld any more.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/19/88)
In article <5724@utah-cs.UUCP>, u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) writes: > We do not have to flame > each other when we disagree. My intent was just that, to disagree and > discuss. Sure looked like a flame to me. You said, in effect, that because she worked for InfoWorld her opinions were irrelevant. This is not a nice thing to say of anyone... particularly since it was so undeserved. > She may very well be objective, but for presenting > evidence in favor of InfoWorld, her comments, whatever they > were, can't be considered objective because she works for > InfoWorld. The favorable aspect was that there was someone at InfoWorld listening at all. The implication being that InfoWorld staffers are a more desirable class of people because they pay attention to UseNet. > What if she were fired, or died (god forbid)? Then > how could we be certain InfoWorld would respond? We wouldn't. But unless you buy a magazine for its name the most important aspect of it is who's working for it. At this point in time, Infoworld has (officially or no) a channel into UseNet. Byte doesn't. > She cannot be considered objective, especially about > Pournelle. No. I would expect her to have a positive bias towards the man out of simple self-interest. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" peter@ficc.uu.net
u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd) (09/20/88)
In article <1529@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >The favorable aspect was that there was someone at InfoWorld listening at >all. The implication being that InfoWorld staffers are a more desirable >class of people because they pay attention to UseNet. [quoting Dan:] >> What if she were fired, or died (god forbid)? Then >> how could we be certain InfoWorld would respond? > >We wouldn't. But unless you buy a magazine for its name the most important >aspect of it is who's working for it. At this point in time, Infoworld has >(officially or no) a channel into UseNet. Byte doesn't. I understand what is stated here. However, I must diagree. There is a clear commitment from Sharon: "Actually, if I were fired or quit, you'd still hear from me -- I just wouldn't be a representative of InfoWorld any more." But there is *no* commitment from InfoWorld to UseNet. It is great to hear from Sharon. The implication here is that Sharon is "...a more desirable class of [person] because [she pays] attention to UseNet". We on the net benefit from *her* expertise with InfoWorld. We do not benefit from InfoWorld's responsiveness to UseNet. It is important whether or not something occurs officially. Certainly an important aspect of a magazine is their charter, and their policies. A magazine hires and fires to get people to accomplish these things. Thus, the "who's working for it" is determined by other issues. I submit that these other issues are at least as important as the who. Chief executive officers, it is true, make policy, but that's a more restricted definition of "who's working for it" than was being used. InfoWorld it not, at this time commited to UseNet. The content of a magazine is determined by "officialness". Besides all that, I still don't think that people here on UseNet comprise an adequate sampling of the readership of *any* particular magazine. If we did, I'm sure we'd see some official commitment to UseNet. Dan Floyd 8<D=