|
Yoho Joe,
I would love to say that UM was mentioned in a competent context, but
it's mentioned in an infommercial (presented as a technical article) on
the "Coyote Point Equalizer" (p48). Since LinuxJ is a magazine targetted
to technically competent GPL/opensource people I would expect that
they'd at least tell you whether this was a proprietary box or not (it's
proprietary, but you won't find out in this article). Even if the author
doesn't think this is important to get this straight, you'd at least
think that the editors would.
In my experience, the editors are always under pressure and the most
they do is check if all the links referred to in the article work and
that the text syntax and semantics do not deviate too much from the
"Chicago Manual of Style" or Strunk's "The Elements of Style" (which I
personally prefer and probably should consult again).
Sidenote: "Lapsing into a Comma" by Bill Walsh is an excellent read on
21st century publishing in America.
The infommercial is targetted to people who know nothing about load
balancing (perhaps the author knows nothing about it either) and is
mostly gee-whiz. He mentions Ultramonkey as an open source balancer,
without mentioning LVS. I'm sure he doesn't know the difference. He says
that the reason you'd want the $10,000 Coyote box with 20 NICs, rather
than an opensource setup on a box with 2 NICs is performance. He doesn't
compare the Coyote box with an opensource balancer running on the same
hardware. Where are the editors here?
Smoking weed? Seriously: if you're featuring a product in your article,
you'll hardly present other choices as superior solution to a given
problem, right?
When LinuxJ last botched an article on load balancers, I wrote telling
them that there were competent people available to review submissions,
just by looking with google. They e-mailed me back saying something like
"oh sure, we'll call you next time".
:).
I've been thinking of discontinuing my subscription to LinuxJ. This just
about seals it.
Take it easy; I believe that if you use google.com for example, you tend
to get more mis-information than by reading an article on an established
magazine like LJ. YMMV though.
Cheers mate,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
echo
'[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq' | dc
|
