| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: MARKED FOR POOP Re: PEAR DB 1.6.0 has been released - now OT if not originally
Ed Avis wrote:
> ed.prochak_at_magicinterface.com (Ed prochak) writes:
>
>
>>>>Of the 4 ORACLE groups it might belong in c.d.o.marketplace. >>> >>>The charter for that group says it is for commercial announcements; >>>the article about PEAR DB was not commercial, so it is not >>>appropriate for .marketplace. >> >>Whether the product earns money for the poster or not, it is still a >>PRODUCT announcement.
>>Also "open source" does not by itself mean non-commercial.
>>How would a casual reader know that in c.d.o.marketplace the article >> >>Subj: new PEAR DBI released >> is ON topic but >> >>Subj: new SAP released >> is OFF topic?
Okay, maybe SAP wasn't the best example. what about
PEAR DBI vs MS ACCESS
Both allow connections to ORACLE. One is commercial, one is open source, but
how do I know that? (assuming this is the first time I see the name or either
one).
>
> But assuming some program that is commercial and connected to Oracle -
> say, TOAD - then the difference should normally be clear to a casual
> observer. I can quickly tell the difference between a typical free
> software announcement - that briefly describes the program, lists the
> changes in this release, and gives a homepage and download - from a
> typical press release or marketing spam. Can't you?
FROM THE SUBJECT ALONE, HELL NO! If I have to open and read the posting, then I'm filtering junk that I don't want to see by looking at it. rather futile IMO.
If "briefly describes the program, lists the changes in this release, and gives a homepage and download" are the criteria for a posting to be OKAY in the misc group, then ORACLE ads would be okay right? (developer downloads are available on the website, so all someone from ORACLE would need is mention the other stuff and they would be clean in your view?
>
> (As for other kinds of content on the Net, it's essentially the
> difference between a message by one individual and a message from a
> corporate group. It's usually quite clear which is which, on the Web
> as on Usenet.)
Sometimes the source is the hardest thing to check. And if I'm self employed,
am I an individual or a corporation? How can you tell from just my email or
web site address?
>
> For the non-casual reader, of course, one looks at the background to
> the programs, their copying conditions, who is behind them.
When I want programs I look for them in appropriate groups,like .announce or
.marketting. I ASK for opinions in the corresponding subject groups, like
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.tools It isn't hard to play nice in newsgroups.
>
> But in any case my point is simply that the charter as it stands *now*
> does not forbid non-commercial announcements on this group, if they
> are relevant to Oracle. Indeed it seems to suggest this group is the
> best place and that .marketing is not appropriate. What the charter
> should say, or what should be the new policy to best combat spam on
> this group, is a separate discussion. (Myself I'd be pleased to see
> announcements of free software on this group, so they can be
> constructively discussed, but if others wanted them banished to
> ..marketplace I'd go with the majority view.)
The majority view is exactly the point (see my other post from tonight on another thread). It defines the culture of the newsgroup. And regulars in this group has often voiced strong distaste for any ads in the working groups (.misc .server .tools).
-- Ed Prochak running http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/ netiquette http://www.psg.com/emily.html -- "Two roads diverged in a wood and I I took the one less travelled by and that has made all the difference." robert frostReceived on Wed Mar 03 2004 - 23:19:55 CST
 |
 |