quality of review articles

[Karl Denninger]

In article <15749 at clover.ICO.ISC.COM> rcd at 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 at belltec.UUCP>, dar at 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 at 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"