I don't have any beef with COMMON, and I thought I used quite neutral
language. I said it has a reputation. Regardless of whether you
think that reputation is deserved, it most definitely has that
reputation. If you think that expressing the existence of a
reputation is "perpetuating a myth" then how are we supposed to
discuss anything at all? How are we supposed to *overturn*
perceptions if we aren't allowed to even say what the perceptions are?
In all seriousness, please read my previous post again, but without
the assumption that I am in any way attacking COMMON or the IBM i. I
never said COMMON was unjustified, unfair, or even overpriced.
I do want to respond to one thing you said in particular, though:
When you say "it has a reputation for high-cost membership, high-cost
events", you are helping propagate a strange myth. This years Annual
conference will cost you a standard rate of $1695. The recent IBM Power
Systems Technical University cost $1995.
I take issue with calling this not only a myth, but a *strange* one.
From the point of view of many IT departments, it is just as *strange*that you think $1695 is NOT a high cost. You can express disagreement
without the value judgments. You have a better chance of changing
someone's mind if you can educate them without implying that there is
something wrong with them for not already holding your point of view.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2015 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact