Talk:Pick operating system: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Reomval of blatant POV |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
I've only used Pick a little, but I also question the statements about it being years ahead of its competitors, as well as <i>the Pick database is still far more powerful and efficient than any other.</i> I won't make any claim to being very familiar with any particular database system; but I seem to recall a less rosy picture of Pick than the article suggests. More importantly, though, is that it's easy to say that the database is 'faster, stronger, better' but there are no references made to back up the claim. In some ways it's more akin to an advertisement than an objective article. |
I've only used Pick a little, but I also question the statements about it being years ahead of its competitors, as well as <i>the Pick database is still far more powerful and efficient than any other.</i> I won't make any claim to being very familiar with any particular database system; but I seem to recall a less rosy picture of Pick than the article suggests. More importantly, though, is that it's easy to say that the database is 'faster, stronger, better' but there are no references made to back up the claim. In some ways it's more akin to an advertisement than an objective article. |
||
I've removed the two offending sentences. The article is generally flawed in that none of its content is verifiable: there are no citations online or offline. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:42, 23 February 2006
Does anyone else, upon reading sentences like the following,
"Pick is considered by many who use it to be years ahead of its competitors..."
...rather doubt the neutrality of the last few contributors to this article?
Such an assessment might have been true in 1985, but is rather hard to justify in 2005. I don't know why I get this impression, but the whole article reads as if written by some UK-residing Pick zealot who has little or no background in any other system. (And I speak as someone who's worked 25+ years in Pick.)
---
I've only used Pick a little, but I also question the statements about it being years ahead of its competitors, as well as the Pick database is still far more powerful and efficient than any other. I won't make any claim to being very familiar with any particular database system; but I seem to recall a less rosy picture of Pick than the article suggests. More importantly, though, is that it's easy to say that the database is 'faster, stronger, better' but there are no references made to back up the claim. In some ways it's more akin to an advertisement than an objective article.
I've removed the two offending sentences. The article is generally flawed in that none of its content is verifiable: there are no citations online or offline. flavius 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)