At 08:38 PM 15-04-2001 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 10:05:46PM -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe you guys should get some Great Bridge marketing/PR person to handle
>> > stuff like this.
>>
>> After reading Ned's comments I figured that's how it got that way in
>> the first place. But that's just speculation.
>
>You probably figured wrong.
>
>All those publications have editors who generally feel they're not
>doing their job if they don't introduce errors, usually without even
>talking to the reporter. That's probably how the "FreeBSD" reference
>got in there: somebody saw "Berkeley" and decided "FreeBSD" would look
>more "techie". It's stupid, but nothng to excoriate the reporter about.
Sometime back we were announcing a product and practically wrote everything
for the journalists and gave it to them so that they could just print it,
and one newspaper still got LOTs of things wrong. In contrast another
newspaper was much better tho - facts right.
The standards haven't changed much, so I don't really bother reading the
first newspaper for a lot of things. Whereas the 2nd one still seems to do
ok for tech stuff.
They're very rarely 100% correct. But they're primarily journalists, if
they were even 99.99% correct about things they'd probably be releasing
Postgresql 8 instead of you guys ;).
I believe you should choose your battles. Sometimes it's just not worth
fighting, not even worth commenting. Other times it's almost compulsory
even though there's no obvious/direct _personal_ gain in it.
Also look at the various stories and commentary floating about in the media
about the recent US-China plane incident. And what really happened? I
figure at least one of the planes should have a video recording of the
incident. But we have everyone guessing what happened instead. Doh.
Cheerio,
Link.
