21 Jan
2005
21 Jan
'05
8:26 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:03:58PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 01:25 +0100, Peter Brinkmann
wrote:
I didn't say I found this surprising, just
slightly objectionable ;)
That said, I did find this line about
"newly-developed proprietary software"
slightly objectionable because they seem to imply that proprietary software
is a mark of quality, or else they wouldn't have mentioned this in a
marketing document.
So? That just means that (surprise!) the marketing people wrote that
press release and not the engineers. All marketing types think proprietary==good.
At
the risk of splitting hairs, I'd say it's deeper than that. Marketing
types like proprietary stuff because they think that proprietary==$$$, but
they wouldn't write this in a marketing document unless they thought that
potential users will think that proprietary==quality. Is it true that
Joe Q User will have more faith in a piece of software if it's
proprietary? Chances are that the word has been focus group tested;
it would be interesting to know how the general public perceives this
term.
Peter