Slashdot Mirror
Hardware Review Sites and Vendor Relationships
VL writes "Manufacturers demanding content changes is nothing new in the tech site community. We take a look at this topic, including one very public example that started in the past three weeks."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
They talk about journalistic integrity as in not changing reviews to get ad dollars, then go on to talk about the HardOCP deal. I am not going to get into that, because my comments get bitchslapped down whenever I support a company that is not in /.'s good graces.
They should have picked a more relevant example, like Tom's Hardware and the Intel P3 fiasco where the 1.13's had a critical error in them. It really seems like they were just trying to get mentioned on Slashdot, and seem like a really good review site.
I understand the need to hsve integrity in what is reported. Any person trying to stifle a collection of facts (which is what HardOCP had/has), should be strung up like a traitor.
Now, if there was libel or untruth involved, I'm the first to say they need to be punished... but... don't try to hide your own faults by beating up on a website. Nobody likes a sore loser (or vaporware company).
[cheapplug]For some journalistic goodness, go to oldos.org[/cheapplug]
Jay | http://oldos.org
I have never got a request from a hardware manufacturer to beautify anything related to them at TuxMobil - Linux On Mobile Computers. Actually laptop manufacturers do not seem to care about Linux users. But there are other caveats. As discussed at SlashDot I had severe trademark trouble with the former project name MobiliX. There are other legal issues, which may occure in an instant. For example if some lawyer accuses a website owner not to obey certain legal requirements. At least in some countries (e.g. Germany) a dedicated law for internet content exists.
If this sort of thing is common, can anyone recommend any review sites that they trust?
--
Real-time deal updates
A LOT of Eula's are like that. Read Java's Eula.
Wasn't Tom's Hardware also paid off by Intel for their "let's run a cpu without a headsink and see what happens" review? I know it sparked one hell of a controversy
Learn something new.
Of course they are very biased. Since it rather hard to find any real-life application of RDBMS serving "sigle client".
And we all know how good MySQL at serving multiple clients with complex queries at once.
Neat quote tho, at least when you understand who is really biased :)
/usd
Yes, that caught my eye too. I find most of the hardware-review sites I read on Google, for that matter. And the whole point of all of this is: how do you "validate that it is a trustworthy site"? Any site? Answer: you don't. Everything on the Web is basically taken on faith or not at all, and you have to use your own judgment as to what is reliable and what is not. But, really ... that's the way things have been since the invention of written language. I mean, how often have you heard the expression "You don't believe everything you read, do you?" That is more true now than it ever was before. When you think about it, back in the age of books (the old-fashioned non-battery-powered, non-backlit kind without a microprocessor), there was an editing and review process for virtually everything that was published. That guaranteed a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than we have on the Web. Yes, it's true ... anyone can publish their works to the whole damn planet for the price of a free Web hosting account, and that is generally a good thing. But that doesn't mean the quality or reliability of that material is any better: on average it is quite the opposite in fact.
The problem is that some (many, I think) people look at information found via Google as somehow having been vetted or approved by that organization. How many users even grasp that once they click on a link on a Google results page they are no longer even connected to Google? Google is primarily an index, not a repository (yes, I know they cache pages but they don't create or maintain that information.) The World Wide Web is the repository, and like most public receptacles it is largely full of crap.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
On the other hand vendors couldn't care less if we demand changes. I still remember when Oracle issued a press release claiming it was the inventor of relational databases. I immediately fired back demanding a retraction. They never did, several years after you could still find the aforesaid release in their database.
Now imagine if we asked them to stop lying about SQL being relational...
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Do you know anything about IT? Or are you one who think IT is only the million dollar projects? A small companie orderbook or a mere webshop don't count?
The stats on mysql showed that for simple setups mysql outperforms the big boys. Factor in price and oracly quickly becomes a terrible product. (A webmonkey can maintain mysql. Oracle needs a dbm)
BUT only on small/medium applications. That is what the benchmark showed. But oracle doesn't like that to be known. It shows people the medium to big benchmarks and how well it does and hopes everyone forgets that they suck at small and are not really good at the gigantic stuff either.
Check out the benchmarks at the top of the pyramid. No oracle.
But I can understand oracle agreeing. Isn't it against advertising standards to name your competitor? Not allowed to say, we are better then those guys? Wich is why in washing powder commercial they literally have brand X.
Anyway would you trust any product wich people are not allowed to test?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's easy to find real-life applications that are serving single clients. Look at most message boards. Most varieties of PHP messages boards I've seen use MySQL as the back end. In that setup, there is only a single client. The web server is the client. The web server itself may have multiple clients, but nonetheless, the database is serving a single client.