Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!cert!netnews.upenn.edu!grad2.cis.upenn.edu!aaron
From: aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Aaron Watters)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Comment on the "Third-Generation Database System Manifesto"
Message-ID: <30205@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 27 Sep 90 13:43:32 GMT
References: <21178@hercules.csl.sri.com> <CIMSHOP!DAVIDM.90Sep23204350@uunet.UU.NET>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Aaron Watters)
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 14

In article <CIMSHOP!DAVIDM.90Sep23204350@uunet.UU.NET> cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) writes:
>
>Both papers were very interesting.  Too bad there's such a schism in the
>database community.
>
I wouldn't characterize it as a schism, I'd call it a healthy debate.
It's only `too bad' for vendors who want claim their products are
`next generation' without any objections.

Why is it that criticism and disagreement is so often characterized
as `bad' in the CS community?  The most minor criticism seems to
reduce some people to fuming, clawing, scorpions.  EG, see the letters
to the CACM in response to `Program Verification: the Very Idea.'
-aaron