The Honourable Analyst From Palo Alto v. The Honourable Analyst From New Zealand

Before discussing Michael Sampson's latest post in response to the Radicati report aftermath, I want to suggest that we in the Lotus community might want to raise the level of debate a little. And not just because we're getting press attention.

I won't mention any names or provide any links. I'm just going to say that a few of the things said by a few people in a few of the many posts about this whole Radicati brouhaha might have been more effective if they had stuck to the facts and to the authors' opinions about those facts. Divergences into opinions about motives or qualities, some of which have bordered on ad hominem (stated or implied.. for example, I recall seeing the adjective "stupid" used once or twice) has lowered the level of debate. While it may be true that there has been some provocation, we in the Domino community would be best served if we do not lower ourselves to the level of trolls and anonymous emailers. At the very least, I believe that we should all try to keep it to the polite style of insult that is used in the British Parliament, rather than descending toward the lower standards of Dick Cheney and Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

I think that the facts and opinions stated in the Radicati paper, Michael Sampson's analysis, Radicati's official response, Lotus' official response, and Eric Mack's dialogue with Sara Radicati speak pretty well for themselves. They're all out there for critical examination. Well, all the facts are out there except of course the contents of the five Radicati reports that they want people to spend $15,000 on, but which we are assured will explain why the free report isn't hopelessly flawed. Anyone who can add to this body of facts and opinion is certainly welcome to do so, of course. I've given my opinion that the report is "flawed", and I justify my opinion solely on the basis that I agree with what Michael Sampson has written and I find Lotus' counter-arguments compelling. I don't see a need to go beyond that level of comment, except perhaps in the occasional AIM chat ;-)

The question of whether the Radicati report was deliberately biased for financial gain or other considerations is probably not something we're going to be able to answer, so I suggest that we drop it unless we find further evidence. Appearances are what they are, but that's all they are. E.g., the fact that the report is now free from Radicati may simply reflect a term of the license they negotiated with Microsoft, and it isn't proof of any prior arrangement or intention. There's an old saying about never assuming malice when other explanations suffice, and I think it's actually for the best that we bear that in mind rather than accusing Radicati of ulterior financial or marketing motives.

The statements, tactics and identity of the one or more Radicati employees who have come forth on weblogs and in private emails are also, of course, fair game for comment. Michael Sampson addresses this in part 2 of his latest post about this matter. Michael's careful analysis of both the facts at issue, and of the way that certain Radicati employees have dealt with this dispute is well worth reading. Michael's theory about the true identity of the ephemeral Daniel Johnson/Dennis O'Hare personna is very interesting, and with the additional facts that he has provided I think we know all that we really need to know about Radicati.