Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sgi!dragon!bananapc.wpd.sgi.com!ciemo
From: ciemo@bananapc.wpd.sgi.com (Dave Ciemiewicz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re:
Message-ID: <1990Nov27.194943.17276@relay.wpd.sgi.com>
Date: 27 Nov 90 19:49:43 GMT
References: <9011201847.AA00746@karron.med.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@relay.wpd.sgi.com ( CNews Account )
Reply-To: ciemo@bananapc.wpd.sgi.com (Dave Ciemiewicz)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 28

In article <9011201847.AA00746@karron.med.nyu.edu>, karron@KARRON.MED.NYU.EDU writes:
|> 
|> I stand corrected. My choice of words, 'weak' was bad. I apologize
|> for sgi bashing when it is clearly not due.

I too should apologize.  A couple people pointed out that the introduction
response was caustic and not a good reflection on myself both personally
and as a representative of SGI.  When I reread my response in Dan's posting,
I cringed.  My tone was unjustified.

In fact, Dan's SGI bashing was instigated by less than adequate documentation
on SGI's part.  The 3.2 man page, I later found out, was missing the all
important disclaimer indicating -float had no affect on calling arguments.
It is quite easy to see how the old 3.2 man page could lead to Dan's
conclusion and even how the new 3.3 man page's offered little more info.

The good news is that the cc(1) man page has been revised to be more
informative about the purpose of -float.  Without Dan's feedback, the need
for the correction might not have been recognized.

The bad news is that my response may have left participants in this forum
with a fear of retribution from SGI employees for SGI bashing.  Participants
should not fear posting the "dumb" question or pointing out weak points in
SGI software or documentation.  I personally enjoy reading and participating
in this forum and (hopefully) helping people.  If my earlier response caused
anyone to forego participation, I'm sorry and I hope they reconsider.

						--- Ciemo