Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!unix!unix.sri.com!dowding From: dowding@ai.sri.com (John Dowding) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Arity's so-called upgrade Message-ID: Date: 15 Mar 91 17:39:59 GMT References: <11768@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> <4968@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <3609@ux.acs.umn.edu> Sender: news@unix.SRI.COM Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA Lines: 31 In-reply-to: pukite@vz.acs.umn.edu's message of 15 Mar 91 13:32:04 GMT In article <3609@ux.acs.umn.edu> pukite@vz.acs.umn.edu (J. PUKITE) writes: The PROLOG Vendor Paradox (PVP) IF the following mappings apply: The Vendor => information, facts; the users => ravings from idiots; other vendors => disinformation; THEN why do the users post messages on the net instead of going to The Vendor FIRST? Because no vendors will respond favorable to the request to declare publicly to a potential (or actual) customer all the known bugs and shortcomings of their product. Over the years I have submitted a number of bug reports to a variety of vendors. In each case, I have never known if they knew about this bug already, or if mine was the first report. Who knows how many times I have spent hours tracking down bugs in products that the vendor already knew was there? (That is a rhetorical question, Richard) I see nothing wrong with using this newsgroup as a forum for product related discussions between users. When misinformation is spread on the net, there have always been experts willing to set matters straight. In any case, it is certainly not the vendors place to tell us what should and should not be discussed on the net.