rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) (04/20/89)
Folks were flaming about the quality of the reviews of 386 UNICes in _UNIX_Today!_. In response, in <358@belltec.UUCP>, dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) writes: >...I didn't particularly agree with all of the points presented about > our UNIX, but I thought it was a pretty good article. If you think > you can do better, get to it and crank out an article for the UNIX > magazines. and the summary of his article was >...OK, smart guys, *you* try your hand at a review But that's really wide of the mark. It's one thing to say that writing is poor or that there's some amorphous subjective flaw. It's quite another to say that it's inaccurate. If the article was off-target (I'm not saying it was), it shouldn't be published, and people shouldn't have to be able to supply a replacement to point out where something is wrong. Look, I don't have to be a winemaker to know bad wine; I don't have to design furniture to know an uncomfortable chair... > Every one of the journals is looking for qualified people to write > quality articles... Sure, but there's the old saying, "Those who can, do; those who can't, write." Actually, it shouldn't be so hard to find people capable of writing an article now and then, but it's hard to find people among them who don't have obvious biases or vested interests. Would you want me (as an Interactive employee) to do a comparative evaluation of 386 UNICes? Probably not. >...As one editor put it to me once, "There's just > not enough mediocrity to go around."... Hmm?? I find quite the opposite to be true! -- Dick Dunn UUCP: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (04/23/89)
In article <15749@clover.ICO.ISC.COM> rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes: >Folks were flaming about the quality of the reviews of 386 UNICes in >_UNIX_Today!_. In response, in <358@belltec.UUCP>, dar@belltec.UUCP >(Dimitri Rotow) writes: the summary of his article was >>...OK, smart guys, *you* try your hand at a review > >....to >say that it's inaccurate. If the article was off-target (I'm not saying it >was), it shouldn't be published, and people shouldn't have to be able to >supply a replacement to point out where something is wrong. Right on. What really chaps me is that they were wrong about some things that they couldn't possibly have missed during installation. Like claiming that SCO lacks "terminfo" curses. Ha. The installation for the SCO development system ASKS YOU WHICH YOU WANT AS A DEFAULT - termcap or terminfo! How in the name of (insert favorite deity) can you possibly miss that?! I went back and read that table twice before I believed what I was seeing..... It's one thing to write poorly, it's quite another to report inaccurately. If you're unsure, don't say it at all. Much better than to spout at the mouth and be made to look like an idiot or worse. The problem with this kind of inaccuracy is that it throws everything in the magazine into question -- not just this one review. >> Every one of the journals is looking for qualified people to write >> quality articles... > >Sure, but there's the old saying, "Those who can, do; those who can't, >write." Actually, it shouldn't be so hard to find people capable of >writing an article now and then, but it's hard to find people among them >who don't have obvious biases or vested interests. What offends and irritates me is that Unix Today is the magazine that has been touting themselves as being "the" place to look for new information on Unix and Xenix operating systems out in the marketplace. Then this "review" comes out. It was obvious to me that the person(s) responsible didn't even bother to completely install or use the systems in question, say much less read the documentation that was shipped with the respective systems. I would be more than happy to do a comparison of the various systems out there, providing I was given the materials to do so, a month or more to complete the writing and work with them, and fair compensation for the work that would have to be put in. Yes, we sell Unix and Xenix machines, but we're not married to any of the vendors in the marketplace. Our only bias is that we will not sell or support what doesn't work. It's obvious that Unix Today either skimped on the quality of the person(s) who did the reviews and/or didn't bother to check their assertions with the manufacturers of the various flavors of Unix. If Unix Today (or any other trade publication) wants something like this done in the future, with the emphasis on reality and accuracy, feel free to contact me. We'll talk. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"