On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 02:27:53PM -0400, Nick Guenther wrote: > On 6/30/06, Breen Ouellette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >PS - Someone who participates in editing vendorwatch.org might want to > >update the Hifn status page. > > Done, but I've left their ranking as "unfriendly" on the front page > because they've given no apology and they still seem to be shady. > > If someone could add the links to the slashdot/newsforge/whereverelse > stories that would be helpful though.
It seems to me that if people are going to make a huge fuss about a company's documentation not being open enough or not available or what have you, and then following the fuss, they make their documentation available, they should at a minimum be considered "somewhat friendly". Wasn't the whole point of all the back-and-forth about the documentation? Now that we can get the docs, who cares if they don't apologize? Do businesses now have to be careful not to hurt our feelings in order to be considered "friendly"? Do we want apologies and proof of non-shadiness, or do we want documentation to be made available? This is also not to mention that being pig-headed about the matter is a great way to prevent other companies from complying with requests for documentation - if a business thinks we're going to demand it kiss our collective ass before we give it credit for cooperating, they're simply not going to cooperate. P.S. - I just read J.C.'s reply along these lines, and this is intended to be in the same vein. bc -- Benjamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
