[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Symbolics' attitude problem
- To: SLUG@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
- Subject: Symbolics' attitude problem
- From: "Scott B. Layson" <gyro@KESTREL.ARPA>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 88 02:57:47 EDT
- In-reply-to: NCRAMER@G.BBN.COM's message of 22 Jul 1988 01:15-EDT <[G.BBN.COM]22-Jul-88 01:15:11.NCRAMER>
Date: 22 Jul 1988 01:15-EDT
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 10:52 EDT
> From: Scott McKay <SWM@SAPSUCKER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> Subject: Re: COMPILE-SYSTEM, AGAIN
> I realize that this sounds arrogant, but just because some users (not
> "most users", as you claim) "want" a certain behavior is not sufficient
> justification for doing it.
To the more general (and the real) question at hand: what can I say?
Yes, it does sound arrogant and more than a little so. It would be
interesting to know what _does_ constitute "sufficient justification"
for the inclusion of a feature in a product when the desire for it by
the knowledgable users and customers of the system does not.
It doesn't just *sound* arrogant -- it *is* arrogant. If Symbolics is
ever to survive it is going to have to get over its "we know better
than the customer" attitude. That and its narcissism are what has
gotten it into its present straits, and will likely lead to its
demise. And quite a shame it will be, too. If laying off half your
workforce hasn't taught you people some humility, what will?