Not really, that's just how things work. Better to give lots of reasons and have only a couple quoted, than to have the interview characterized as "he could only give a few reasons."
Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Joe Poole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: InfoWorld Article - Microsoft Benchmarks Step Up Linux Assault On Friday 05 September 2003 14:11, you wrote: > > He obviuosly does not understand the power of the > > mainframe. IBM has always talked about throughput > > rather than "performance" - elapsed time of any given > > transaction and throughput. > > Oh, I'd think he understands all too well. Most of the industry > "performance" benchmarks measure things that mainframes aren't good > at. It's like measuring the duration of your next trip to the grocery > store in angstroms per cubic kilometer. The measurements are > meaningless, or are misleading in ways that don't benefit IBM, so > there's no point in expending lots of resources to compare something > that won't tell you anything positive. > > This is long-standing IBM policy -- nothing new to see here. I guess I was silly giving the guy a half hours worth of reasons during the interview. Only a handful were quoted.
