jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (11/24/85)
This is a followup to an article posted originally in net.arch. I have moved the discussion here to join the discussion of the abusive net.general article. I originally complained about similar, but milder, abuse in net.arch. In article <1795@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >Joe Buck at Entropic Processing, commenting on my comparison of the >Concurrent multiprocessors to the Sequent, writes: I did not comment on your comparison, as you did not post one. > >> Notice this is the same outfit whose president posted an ad to net.general. >> Note the total lack of technical information and the smug assurance that >> CONCURRENT is marvelously superior. A lot of your potential customers are >> out here, and a lot of your competitors are paying the bill. >> >> This message by itself is a pretty minor offense, but it's the third >> I've seen and it's starting to look like a pattern of abuse. > >Let me answer the technical question first, since the nontechnical discour- >tesy needs to be answered only due to its injustice. > >Recently there has been a lengthy debate in here about the posting of >"marketing hype" vs technical information on new products. It occurs to me >that one of the reasons for this is that the people who know the details >of the new products in many cases are constrained from saying too much >about it since they generally know a lot of stuff that can't be said yet, >... No, that's not the problem. The problem is with people posting self-serving messages on a net that is paid for by others. I didn't object to the 386 posting because it contained some useful technical information along with the hype and self-congratulation. If you are constrained (as I often am) from posting trade secrets on the net, that's no reason why you're obligated to post fluff either. >This is why I posted a comment, in response to someone saying "he probably >wants a Sequent; we have one and it's solid" that just said "no, he really >wants one of ours." I felt this was fair: given a claim about the Sequent, >to point out that if you like the Sequent, you should look at the >Concurrent too. My point was that they are comparable machines. Fair enough. But a statement from a customer that a product is quite different from you saying "you want our product". >... >See? That's probably why you get all this marketing hype. It's just part >of the difference between industry and academia. Sometimes people in one >have difficulty understanding the other, but it's just part of the realities >of developing new things in the different environments. I'm not in academia. We are in the process of trying to get a product out the door. I will not use the net to advertise it, or to tell the world how wonderful we are. Not even if we decide to change our name. Our company is much smaller than yours, and could get a proportionately bigger benefit for net abuse. >> I'm sending followups to net.followup to join the flames about the >> net.general message. > >This is rather cowardly. I think the net.general announcement, which told >of the formation of the company, was of value in letting people know of >its existence, even if it was enthusiastically posted to the wrong group; I'm amazed that you're calling me a coward for trying to remove an argument having nothing to do with computer architecture to a more important group; net.followup is for discussion of net.general messages, and this is, in a sense, part of that same discussion. It should not have been posted at all. It did not just announce the name change; it asked people to call the sales office. And I have yet to see an apology for that message. -- Joe Buck | Entropic Processing, Inc. UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck | 10011 N. Foothill Blvd. ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA | Cupertino, CA 95014
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (11/24/85)
** About other people paying for advertisements. Around here pesnta has been a major node for many years and they provided newsfeeds that cost "CONCURRENT" (formerly Perkin-Elemer Data Systems) plenty. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
cushner@ttidcb.UUCP (Jeffrey Cushner) (11/26/85)
I just want to say that I worked for Perkin-Elmer for years;
(In fact I even worked with the gentleman that posted the original
article) [but that's besides the point].
Anyway, I and my associates here at TTI that have worked at PE are
grateful that the announcement was broadcast since we probably wouldn't
have heard the news for a while from other sources.
That was for the FIRST announcement in Net.rumor. As far as the
second one from the CEO, that was uncalled for, and I hope that
they have learned their lesson.
I don't believe that Concurrent should be censured from the Net, however.
--
==============================================================================
Jeff Cushner @
Citicorp-TTI
Santa Monica CA 90405
(213) 450-9111 x2273
{randvax,trwrb,vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcb!cushner
*********************************************************************
** The above comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of **
** Citicorp-TTI and if the corporation wants them to, they'll have **
** to pay through the nose for the rights! **
*********************************************************************