Guy Macon wrote:
Quote:
My only responsibility is to give an honest and fair assessment
of the quality of the program, which I believe that I am well
qualified to do.
|
Evaluating program quality is actually much harder than people think. Being
honest and fair is even more difficult, and all we can do, as humans, is to
make our best effort at that. Those that realize that honesty and fairness
is impossible usually make a better attempt at them.
Quote:
It is to Albert's credit that he provided an
evaluation copy to me, knowing that I disagree with his naming
and marketing practices.
|
Well, I don't think that such a marketing move deserves any special credits,
but it is surely more acceptable marketing than continued lies.
Quote:
The reason I made the offer is that
pretty much every criticism here is about his naming and marketing
practices -- nobody has examined the quality of the actual
program.
|
In all fairness, the phoney "validator" _has_ been evaluated and comments
have been posted to Usenet. People just got tired of it, because none of the
fundamental flaws - like presenting outright false claims, wrong advice,
misleading statements, and irrelevant notes, ultimately reflecting nothing
but the software author's and vendor's personal likes and dislikes - were
addressed by the said author and vendor. He just makes his own rules and
then sells a "validator" that checks (or tries to check) whether such rules
are followed.
Followups randomized as usual. (Posting to three groups just calls for
trimming followups, in the rare cases where it makes sense to partipate.)
--
Yucca,
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 
