Re: Fast Forward (fwd)

From: "Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)venux(dot)net>
To: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fast Forward (fwd)
Date: 2001-04-15 17:05:31
Message-ID: 00d301c0c5ce$47593f60$0200000a@windows
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

To top it all off, their comments are broken -- I submitted mine and it
displays Marc's again (until you click on the link of course)..

*sigh* they must be using MySQL. :-)

-Mitch

----- Original Message -----
From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: Fast Forward (fwd)

> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Nathan Myers wrote:
>
> > This is probably a good time to point out that this is the _worst_
> > _possible_ response to erroneous reportage. The perception by readers
> > will not be that the reporter failed, but that PostgreSQL advocates
> > are rabid weasels who don't appreciate favorable attention, and are
>
> favorable attention??
>
> > dangerous to write anything about. You can bet this reporter and her
> > editor will treat the topic very circumspectly (i.e. avoid it) in the
> > future.
>
> woo hoo, if that is the result, then I think Vince did us a great service,
> not dis-service ...
>
> > Most reporters are ignorant, most reporters are lazy, and many are
> > both. It's part of the job description. Getting angry about it is
> > like getting angry at birds for fouling their cage. Their job is to
> > regurgitate what they're given, and quickly. They have no time to
> > learn the depths, or to write coherently about it, or even to check
> > facts.
>
> Out of all the articles on PgSQL that I've read over the years, this one
> should have been shot before it hit the paper (so to say) ... it was the
> most blatantly inaccurate article I've ever read ...
>
> > It will be harder than the original mailings, but I urge each who
> > wrote to write again and apologize for attacking her.
>
> In a way, I think you are right .. I think the attack was aimed at the
> wrong ppl :( She obviously didn't get *any* of her information from ppl
> that belong *in* the Pg community, or that have any knowledge of how it
> works, or of its history :(
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mitch Vincent 2001-04-15 17:11:34 The "Current Release Docs"
Previous Message Philip Warner 2001-04-15 16:09:48 Re: pg_dump compatibility with 7.0