Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:5678 comp.unix.microport:3161
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!amdahl!pacbell!belltec!dar
From: dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Comparison of 386 Unixes
Summary: OK, smart guys, *you* try your hand at a review
Message-ID: <358@belltec.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 89 20:23:34 GMT
References: <4160@stiatl.UUCP> <717@pcrat.UUCP> <2354@van-bc.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Technologies, Fremont, CA
Lines: 28


Just to follow up on the flames at UNIX Today's article ...
(talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth ... )

I didn't particularly agree with all of the points presented about
our UNIX, but I thought it was a pretty good article.  If you think
you can do better, get to it and crank out an article for the UNIX
magazines. 

Every one of the journals is looking for qualified people to write
quality articles.  As one editor put it to me once, "There's just
not enough mediocrity to go around."  Put together an article
proposal, draft an outline, and send it to the editor for the 
magazine for which you would like to write.

You'll discover that even superficial reviews take an immense amount
of care and time to accomplish, and that a review as relatively 
detailed as that which UNIX Today ran takes weeks to do.  

UNIX Today should be commended for actually taking the time to procure
and install each package and to actually run it.  If you want to 
complain about "trash" reviews, save your time for some of the DOS
magazines that "review" products by re-writing vendor-supplied 
press releases.  (Or save your flames for the net, where unlike 
the free copy of UNIX Today, we get to pay phone charges to read
things we don't always agree with).

- Dimitri Rotow