Disclaimer: I'm taking Justin's word that the e-mail sent to Photodex was
more in the nature of a flame than a polite notice.
I don't think that the question of whether Paul's post was appropriate
here has anything to do with the issue Justin raised. The question is
whether a "first-time offender" should be flamed by the list's maintainer,
in his/her official capacity. I don't know who the maintainer is, and it
doesn't matter.
It is a fact that Linux users still have a rep as wild-eyed fanatics.
(Some of the posts in this thread give credence to that notion.) Nasty
letters to a business that's trying to add to our functionality don't help
one bit. If Paul's post was contrary to SigLinux's charter, customs, or
guidelines, a firm, POLITE e-mail would probably be sufficient. If it's
not, further action should probably be directed to his e-mail provider. As
has been stated, we're all old hands at spam defense. We all know that if
they don't listen to a request, they sure as hell won't respond to a
demand.
My point is that Photodex is trying to be the good guys. If they need
pointers, whacking them ain't the way to go about it.
And as far as whether they're commercial or not, or open-source or not,
or I like their product or not, what the hell does that have to do with
this whole question? If Photodex isn't welcome to announce new product
here, *according to the given reasons*, neither is GNU.
--
Doc Shipley
Network Guy
TARL Labs, UT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
