Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mailrus!utah-gr!utah-cs!sunset.utah.edu!u-dmfloy
From: u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: R.I.P. Byte
Message-ID: <5708@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: 8 Sep 88 10:19:13 GMT
References: <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> <674@proxftl.UUCP> <2596@sugar.uu.net> <7031@well.UUCP> <1355@percival.UUCP>
Sender: news@utah-cs.UUCP
Reply-To: u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd)
Organization: University of Utah, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 33

In article <1355@percival.UUCP> gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) writes:
>
>Interesting!  After _all_ the Byte-bashing that's been going on, and reported
>uploads to BIX (who cares if its trade-marked?), _not one word_ from BYTE.
>
>But we make _one_ mention of Info-World, and, voila!, a response.  Maybe not 
>offical, maybe from only a off-duty staffer, BUT a response non-the-less.

This shows nothing about the magazines. This only shows the demographics of
the audience.

>
>It appears to me that we are indeed right about BYTE's opinion of its readership
>And it further looks like maybe it's time to go out a buy a copy of Info-world
>and see what kind of a rag _it_ is these days.

May I offer an alternative scenario:
BYTE's staffers are unconcerned with our dribble here. They know fluff
when they see it. Info-World on the other hand perhaps has to fight
hard any where it can or maybe by conincidence an employee from Info-World
read it.

The thought that we on the net are really representative of either
of the magazines is naive at best. Show me something that says we are
representative, and I'll have to modify my stance.

By the way, I would think my response would at least equal 
if not outweight the Info-World guy as far as testimonials go.
[Of course the vanity within me *has* to say that. :-)]
I am not afiliated with byte.
If the Info-World guy isn't with Info-World, our testimonials
are prima-facia equal.
If the guy is a staffer, then he can hardly be considered objective.