NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/unix/sysv386/13068

Text File | 1992-08-12 | 6.3 KB | 130 lines

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!canrem!telly!evan
From: [e-mail] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: FAQ maintainer needs some leverage on Dell
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:29:13 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 118

In article <[e-mail]>
    [e-mail] (Steve Sheldon) writes:

> I finally found copies of the FAQ, hoping to find useful information
>to help me out in our own purchase.
>
> I did find some very helpful information.  However, I was also rather
>offended by the FAQ's.  I suspect this is because of the tremendous
>amount of personal opinions, insults and other garbage.
>
> I don't know about tradition.  But is it possible to impeach a FAQ
>maintainer?

WHOA!

While I generally agree with Chip & Co. regarding the criticisms of the
bake-off, there is no disputing the time spent by Eric in compiling this
extensive amount of information. At the very least he's combined
feature, compatability lists and comparative pricing.

I personally believe that Eric's commentary is of significantly less
value, which is dropping daily (his commentary of ESIX hasn't changed a
word from day one, even though they've done some fairly massive shifts
in pricing and marketing, as well as a major upgrade of the product. No
doubt the other vendors have made improvements as well).

There are many people who participate in this group who have decent
commentaries on the various offerings (despite my obvious ESIX bias,
I hope I've been relatively fair in what I've said.) Eric's is but one
more voice in this fray.

Yes, Eric deserves the bashing he gets for complaining that this is that
vendor isn't going to give him real stuff. As a former full-time
journalist (who still writes for the Canadian computer press on UNIX issues
from time to time), I can certainly attest that the lure is there. There are
those who *would* put heaps of free stuff in your laps in hope that it
would give a favourable light to an inferior product. I don't even
think the idea of getting free (or free use of) stuff even occurred to
Eric until he got a copy of Consensys UNIX, unsolicited.

Hell, I got one too. So what?

Getting free stuff is a great boost to a journalist's ego, and a
significant perk to the job. (Just ask any rock critic how large his CD
library is.)

But not every company plays this game, however, and it's a challenge how
to put them on an even footing with those who would give you things for
free. Places like Consumer Reports handle it by not accepting *anything*
for free. I don't think that extreme's necessary, though, in this case :-).

Doing a *real* comparative review means buying something off the street
like anyone else, and going through what they go through. Anything less
can't help but be tainted, but it's too expensive an option to ask of a
volunteer reviewer. However, this last stunt of Eric's, asking for the
net's assistance to pressure/coerce/blackmail/extrort/whatever equipment
from a vendor, has definitely crossed the line IMO.

None of the above, however, in any way is intended to detract from the
useful work in  Eric's overview, and there is plenty of that. We can
appreciate what he's done without having to endorse it.

I would make the following suggestions, that may prove helpful to all of
us in the long run by encouraging this kind of stuff while not endorsing it:

1) Ask Eric to separate the cold-hard-facts part of his overview (the
   tables, charts, pricing, etc., that which is generally undisputable)
   from the comments (his comments on others' postings, comments about
   "reputation", "intended markets", and any conclusions derived
   thereupon.

2) Stop calling Eric's stuff an FAQ (or series of FAQs). The term "FAQ"
   implies that its content is definitive and not really subject of
   debate. It's certainly possible that if the factual portion of Eric's
   posting can certainly be part of an FAQ, the commentary is not
   appropriate for such a label. If the two were split, as I suggest
   above, the factual stuff could be part of a greater FAQ, and the
   commentary would be, well, Eric's commentary, with people may do as
   they please. As they would for your commentary, Connor's, even mine
   of Larry's.

3) If we are going to offer up some kind of a reasonable way to describe
   the less-tangible aspects of companies (quality of support, ease of
   installation, knowledge of the product by sales staff, reliability,
   bugs, "added value", etc.), then there should be a method of
   reporting it that is *less* biased than the methods currently
   employed. (Won't be possible IMO to say that one can be free of bias,
   but we can do better than we have now.)

   I propose a survey.

   Posted in this group and relevant others, it would ask specific
   questions (yes/no, rate <feature> on a scale of 1 to 5), in order to
   try to put some kind of statistical bent on this rather than just to
   subjectively summarize "the net's" feeling about this or that product.

   The survey can be posted on a regular basis, and a person volunteers
   to collect and parse the answers. One survey answer form per net address
   would be allowed, but people will be allowed to change their responses
   as often as they want. Products change over time, after all.

   The results of the survey, to me, would still be too opinionated and
   volatile to form what I'd consider a legitimate part of an FAQ. But
   it would go further towards describing the collective attitudes of
   the net towards this or that vendor. Then leave it without comment,
   and trust the judgements of people to makie up their own minds.

I offer to participate in the creation and execution of such a survey,
though I presently don't have the resources to do the collection.
I would not want to do it alone, not only because I'm short on time, but
also because I'm sure to be seen by at least a few of you to be biased,
and I'd like some balanced opinions if this is to have some objective value.

Comments?
--
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         [e-mail] / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / [phone]
    Was "Trouble" (from the Broadway Show, Music Man) the first rap song?