>From: Scott C Kennedy 619-658-4152 <sck@qualcomm.com>
>>from:  mbell@europa.com (Max Bell)
>>>From: Scott C Kennedy 619-658-4152 <sck@qualcomm.com>
>>
>>>Each speaker will be asked to give a 10 min presentation on their
>>>implementation, they are free to say anything they like during their 
>>>presentation, but I'd suggest staying within the realms of good taste.
>>>(ie. no competitor bashing)
>>>[ . . . ]
>>>	War of the Intel Unixes
>>>
>>>	Experts from the partisian camps of BSD, Linux and Solaris, 
>>>	all on Intel, will square off in a panel discussion of who 
>>>	has the better Unix. Perhaps the only thing they'll agree 
>>>	on is that any of them are better than Microsoft Windows. 
>>
>>I fail to see how you will combine "no competitor bashing" with "war" and
>>"who has the better".
>>
>I've already made suggestions to the web author to change her text. 
>The title should be "Unix on Intel Panel" and "square off" should be 
>"roundtable" (it's all in the geometry.)

That certainly sounds much more constructive.

>But, you can have a better product and give a presentation extolling your
>benefits without resorting to bashing the other products that compete in 
>your marketplace. So, I do disagree with your other point.

"Better" is a subjective term and can only have useful meaning in comparing
specifics.  "[W]ho has the better Unix" is far too vague to be an answerable
question.  Each flavor has strengths and weaknesses, and which one is "better"
will depend heavily on what one is doing/wants to do.  Having each speaker
focus on their flavor's strengths will be productive, but allowing them
to focus on the weakness of the alternatives would not be.  I suppose, as you
say, "it's all in the geometry".  Sorry if I seem like a wet blanket, I'm just
tired of seeing time and effort wasted on "my flavor is better than your
flavor" attitudes.

Max