Re: Fast Forward (fwd) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 11:44:48AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 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??

Yes, totally favorable.   There wasn't a hint of the condescension 
typically accorded free software.  All of the details you find so 
objectionable (April vs. June?  "The" marketing arm vs. "a" marketing
arm?) would not even be noticed by a non-cultist.

> > 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 ...

False.  

This may have been the reporter's and the editor's first direct
exposure to free software advocates.  You guys came across as 
hate-filled religious whackos, and that reflects on all of us.  

> > 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 had a number of minor errors, easily corrected.  The next will 
probably talk about what a bunch of nasty cranks and lunatics 
PostgreSQL fans are, unless you who wrote can display a lot more 
finesse in your apologies.  Thanks a lot, guys.

> > 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 :(

How is this reporter going to have developed contacts within the 
community?  She has just started.  Now you've burnt her to a crisp, 
and she will figure the less contact with that "community" she has, 
the happier she'll be.  Her editor will know that mentioning PG in
any context will result in a raft of hate mail from cranks, and will 
treat press releases from our community with the scorn they have earned.

Reporters are fragile creatures, and must be gently guided toward the
light.  They will always get facts wrong, but that matter not at all.
The overall tone of the writing is the only thing that stays with their
equally dim audience.  That dim audience controls the budgets for 
technology deployment, including databases.  Next time you propose a
deployment on PG instead of Oracle, thank Vince et al. when it's 
dismissed as a crank toy.

Finally, their talkback page was most probably implemented _not_ with 
MySQL, but with MS SQL Server.  These intramural squabbles (between 
MySQL and PG, between Linux and BSD, between NetBSD and OpenBSD) are 
justifiably seen as pathetic in the outside world.  Respectful attention 
among projects doesn't just create a better impression, it also allows 
you, maybe, to learn something.  (MySQL is not objectively as good as 
PG, but those guys are doing something right, in their presentation, 
that some of us could learn from.)

Nathan Myers
ncm@zembu.com