mrose@TWG.COM (Marshall Rose) (09/02/88)
Just when you think Padlipsky and Karn have hit the depths of extremism,
here we have something from the other side of the spectrum:
Reading from the Opinions section of Network World, August 29, 1988 on
page 27, from an article entitled "The long, bumpy migration path to
OSI":
"OSI, on the other hand is significantly superior to TCP/IP in every
way: at every protocol layer, in every class of protocol and in
every application, the richness of OSI application-layer protocols
is evident to every user."
The author's name is Jeff Horn, he is a consultant with Network
Strategies, Inc., a communications consulting firm in Fairfax, VA.
Phil -- I encourage you to send a nasty letter to either the author or
Network World. This is the second time in one week when I've read an
article claiming the technical superiority of OSI over TCP/IP at every
layer. The last article I read said that "OSI was significantly faster
than TCP/IP".
Have fun,
/mtrbzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (09/03/88)
Does anyone know who edits/funds/controls Network World? They've been shoving anti-TCP articles on their front pages since their first issue. These are definitely folks with a (blind) mission. Murdoch? Jim and Tammy? -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
stjohns@BEAST.DDN.MIL (Mike St. Johns) (09/04/88)
Hmm - I've noticed the balance swinging in recent issues - but you've got to realize they write for the *commercial* world, and since no *big* vendor has embraced TCP/IP (touched, yes, embraced no) they have little interest in covering it. Also, from my one brush with the reporters, these are NOT network guru type people - these are journalists specializing in technical reporting. Mike
kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (09/07/88)
In article <8809021858.AA14697@bu-cs.bu.edu> bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > >Does anyone know who edits/funds/controls Network World? They've been >shoving anti-TCP articles on their front pages since their first >issue. These are definitely folks with a (blind) mission. Murdoch? >Jim and Tammy? > > -Barry Shein, ||Encore|| Hmm, I hadn't really noticed any trends. Seems to me I've read about as many "TCP/IP taking networking world by storm!" articles as I have "SNA taking networking world by storm!" and "OSI predicted to take networking world by storm very soon!" articles. I have noticed a lot of NSFnet bashing this summer, but also elsewhere, so it isn't limited to NW. I think CW Communications started Network World as a spinoff from ComputerWorld, although I find no trace today of CW in the NW copyright box on page 2. I wouldn't expect to find a conspiracy within NW, just a lot of harried, overworked, underpaid, and inexperienced editors and reporters and contributors, all trying to fill up a lot of pages with text and advertising. And that's the crux of the whole problem. Not enough time and money to do a really top-notch job. Of course, by way of disclaimer, this problem is by no means limited to NW, it affects all the publications that work the same way- free distribution paid for by advertising. (ConneXions is an example of a counter-trend and you can see the difference in number of pages, subscription cost per page, quality, and accuracy. But no one is getting rich either in NW or ACE.) An awful lot of the stuff you read is just regurgitated press releases dressed up with a few quick phone calls and enough editing to fit the article in the space available. As long as you use the information therein according to the source, NW can be a useful tool for getting the word on new product introductions, upcoming conferences, results of standards committee meetings, and of course the advertising pages which announce new products and offerings in a slightly more transparent way. I sympathize with the staff at NW, but I don't excuse the sloppiness. My feelings are that if we could address the issue of copyright and compensation for electronically distributed information and electronic distribution of formatted graphics and text, ala Postscript (tm), we could solve the problems of narrow-cast publishing by moving to electronic publishing. Until that day, I am thankful to be a part of the Internet newsreading public. Those that I do feel are culpable abusers of the public trust are those columnists that write about issues that affect sales of their books and software. The issue of computer viruses is a case in point. I feel that publications should screen their columnists, no matter how well known and popular, and avoid publishing authors in the context of regular columns who have products to sell, with sales that can be affected by what they say in their columns. If you disagree, I think it would be interesting to track some of these anti-TCP articles in NW and elsewhere and see if we can spot a trend. By way of example, a while back a series of little news-spots and pie charts started appearing in Data Communications, NW and probably elsewhere, all attributed to one source about how token-ring networks were surpassing Ethernet networks in various measures. All calculated to give the impression that a) either Ethernet was dead and you better install TR or b) TR was socially acceptable :-) Anyone remember seeing these? This is a PR campaign originating from one single source with a particular agenda in mind. Is this insidious? No more than what the White House does to the White House press corps. I don't blame the media for parroting, I just try to figure out who is behind some of what I read and then apply the appropriate derating factors. If anyone has any similar stories they recall seeing, post something. Maybe we can figure out if anyone in particular has a hidden agenda going. Perhaps there is a contributor or editor at NW that has a parrot on his shoulder. Once you know the name and affiliation of the parrot, the game's up. Kent England, BU
budden@tetra.NOSC.MIL (Rex A. Buddenberg) (09/08/88)
Kent, No trends to report in Network World, but I second some of your comments. Couple months back, NW published a front page article on SAFENET. The reporter interviewed (now retired) Cdr Marc Poland who was the Navy's program manager for the standardization effort. The reporter went away with a manuscript that he and I had written, in anticipation of such events. The reason the article was tolerably accurate was that I read an awful lot of what I had written! A lot of cut & paste going on. The current issue (arrived today) has an article on comparing throughput for various LANs. I thought I understood the issue, and can explain it to others. But after reading this hack job, I'm not so sure....:-) Rex Buddenberg
cperry@BERT.MITRE.ORG (09/09/88)
Kent, OK, here goes. If what you read on the front page of your favorite trade rag doesn't smell quite right, it's probably a result of one of three things: naivete, bandwagon-ism or profiteering. Unfortunately you're not sure which, though the result is the same: you're mis-informed by somebody who should've known enough to write a balanced news story. Although most reporters who write for the trade press are conscientious, there are enough sloppy ones and enough drum-beaters to make reading an occasionally hazardous activity. Usual disclaimers. Regards, Chris Perry
rick@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (09/09/88)
You're leaving out stupidity and arrogance. I once talked to a "reporter" for Computer Decisions about the TCP/IP fiber optic network we were running (this was 1983 or 84 and there wasn't much fiber around). Among other things, I said that we were running Sun 3/160 workstations. I also asked to see a copy of his article before publication so I could correct any technical errors he might have made. The arrogant twit gave be a big speech about how he was a "professional" and did not tolerate "censorship" of his "work". Well, it seems that Mr. Professional wasn't very smart and had never heard of Sun 3/160s. So he "corrected" me in the article and when it was published we ended up running a network of IBM 360s. (I got calls from people trying to sell me IBM services for over a year after that article). Moral: Never rely on the information in a trade magazine for any reason. You MUST verify it yourself if you are doing something that depends on it. ---rick
kwe@BU-IT.BU.EDU (09/10/88)
For another laugh, have a look at the "Networking" page in last weeks' InfoWorld where someone tries to explain broadcast storms and black holes... It's a grin. Wonder what people reading this rag think about our nets?
bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (09/11/88)
Howsabout all this Computer Virus stuff. I've been called by BU Public Relations and other media folks in search of an interview from "an expert" on computer viruses (not my dept.) Now some guy claims to be selling "vaccines" for computer viruses and Chicken Noodle News gets out their science editor to write it up as if it were a medical story that goes alongside the latest AIDS reports. The guy with the vaccine in a real serious tone tells about how sometimes the disks get so infected the only thing to do is to throw them away (no kidding!) Is this a cargo cult or what? If anyone has any seriously infected 300MB 5 1/4" drives please wrap them carefully in plastic (wearing rubber gloves and scrubbing with Betadine afterwards, to the elbows) and send them to me, I've decided to open a hospice for them to find peace in their fate. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (09/11/88)
In article <8809102055.AA08349@bu-cs.bu.edu> bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >Howsabout all this Computer Virus stuff. I've been called by BU Public >Relations and other media folks in search of an interview from "an >expert" on computer viruses (not my dept.) There was someone at the last USENIX with a card that listed his profession as "cyberimmunologist". -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer
budden@tetra.NOSC.MIL (Rex A. Buddenberg) (09/11/88)
In article <8809091827.AA04055@buit13> kwe@BU-IT.BU.EDU writes: > > Wonder what people reading this rag think about our nets? This is the part that should be of concern to all of us in such rags. A good reputation takes a long time to build. One bad reporting job and you can tear a lot down in one swell foop. It's in all our interests to counter such inaccuracies best we can. Rex Buddenberg
bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (09/13/88)
And, to risk being accused of a keen eye for the obvious, maintain a sense of humor or don't give interviews unless you're very comfortable with the interviewer and the possibility of being misquoted or misunderstood, it's inevitable in my experience. ComputerWorld interviewed me about some stuff a while back and managed to botch the organizational tree and which dept was doing what for whom. I guess it trod on some internal sensitive spots, no one outside could possibly have spotted the errors and some were quite understandable. Didn't stop people from appearing at my door, angry, pointing out that X doesn't work for Y or the Z group doesn't do that! Of course not, of course they knew I knew, of course they realized the reporter had filled in various holes by himself, didn't stop the complaints, as if I had written the article. Ah well, at least they got almost all the tech stuff right, and that's what the article was about. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
ROBERT@vm1.mcgill.ca (Robert Craig) (09/13/88)
Even if you write it down, a journalist or editor can either misunderstand or overlook. I had one send me a copy of the article, which I corrected and returned. We then had a lengthy phone conversation during which I dictated some quotes. I had also sent a fair amount of material to begin with (say 50 pages worth). Even after all this effort, when the article appeared, it was only 50% accurate. I guess journalism is like baseball: batting .500 is excellent. Robert.
slf@well.UUCP (Sharon Lynne Fisher) (09/15/88)
I'm the Networking editor for InfoWorld, and I'm glad somebody told me about this discussion so I could participate. (I haven't visited this newsgroup in a while, because I've been too busy.) In answer to some questions: yes, Network World is a spinoff of Computerworld. Forget the editor's name; he's new. Regarding some of the things that have been said, I'm sorry to say that some are true. Kent England's description -- we make enough phone calls to verify the press release and rewrite it -- is true more often than I'd like to admit. (Oh, by the way -- InfoWorld is a sister publication of Computerworld and Network World; we focus on the PC end of things.) And yes, reporters sometimes make mistakes; editors sometimes do too -- I can't tell you how many times a copy editor has pointed to V.22 bis in a story and said, "Is this right?" Regarding the InfoWorld article on black holes that somebody was laughing at -- I was on vacation that week, and the person in charge of the section that week found himself with a rather sizable hole on the page late on the day it was supposed to go to the printer. (We ship pages every day, and most people have deadlines every day. I've had weeks where I've written 14 stories.) Anyway, he researched and wrote that story in less than an hour. Of course, it looks it. But sometimes these things happen. I'm not trying to justify errors; just letting you know the background. Yes, most of the people I know in weekly computer journalism have journalist backgrounds. Reporters are paid $20,000-$30,000 per year. This is riches compared to what newspapers pay, which is why journalists come to computer magazines. But it's shit compared to what engineers and computer scientists are paid, which is why you don't see too many of them there. (I'm an exception; I have a BS in computer science from RPI. And there's a couple other real techies here. But we're definitely the exception.) Again, I'm not trying to excuse errors. Errors are inexcusable, and I would be very glad if you-all told me every time InfoWorld made one. (I may go slit my wrists afterwards, though.) It would make me feel better if you also told me every time we did something well, too.