In this article, an author goes out of his way to project a positive image for a colleague with one heck of an image problem. John spends four of the first five paragraphs in a story (which any first year journalism student knows are supposed to represent the most important points of the story, in descending order) talking not about IBM or messaging, but about Sara Radicati.
Then, he goes on to say that because IBM has decided to make the IWCT_RE (Eclipse based rich client framework) the basis in which both its Workplace and Lotus Notes client software runs, that this indicates a dominance by Workplace. Hello? The entire Lotus Notes product runs in it, and will now be running on MORE platforms (including linux) than ANY OTHER RICH CLIENT SOFTWARE.
John, what are you thinking? Did Sara Radicati pay you to write that piece of garbage, or as a so-called journalist are you just so interested in finding something controversial to say to stir the poop, that you really don't care how credible it is?
Comment Entry |
Please wait while your document is saved.
this might be because of the shady way they handled themselves on Ed's blog,
not because of some predictions Sara Radicati has made.
Sad. I don't think it's about "not getting it". It's about accusing others of
having blinders on when you're wearing them yourself.
In fact, I think I'll blog that and link to you.