I'm on Richard's side. I think it is a little funny when vendors ask
us users to discuss tool problems in private.
On Dec 11, 5:11pm, Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
> Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : Evaluation of Vendor tools on SI list
> > Just a comment based on the last month`s or so email. Particuliar
> > responses on various vendor tools should be sent privately to the
> > originator of the particuliar question. Although its nice to know that
> > my competitors tools has bugs as well, I'm very sure that if
> > the shoe was on the other foot it would be uncomforatble. Since this
> > is primarily a technical forum we (software vendors) are not supposed
> > to advertize the merits of our tools. Except for some most notable
> > exceptions (sometimes we software vendors get exited) I can say that
> > we tend to comply. I don't mind users asking for particuliar models,
> > and merits of particuliar vendor tools. However broadcasting the
> > responses on the SI deflector is in my humble opinion not appropriate
> > and in some cases not fair.
> On the contrary! One of the prime purposes of the list is for
> _users_ to discuss the merits and shortcomings of various tools.
> If the criticism is based on a mis-understanding, it may be a
> common mis-understanding in which case a public discussion is
> a fast way to educate all users. Aggrieved harping or invalid
> ignorant criticisms will be quickly recognized and discounted.
> I agree that it's inappropriate for _vendors_ to bad-mouth the
> competition or hype their own offerings. But any vendor should
> accept honest user criticism as constructive feedback. If they
> can't take it, tough beans; maybe they should be in another business.
> Richard Schumacher
> Hewlett Packard
> High Performance Systems Division
>-- End of excerpt from Richard A. Schumacher