Re: Gartner as usual..

[ArkanoiD <ark () eltex net>]

And what i hate most is that Gartner reports *are* being taken seriously,
causing "wag the dog effect" -- the "analysis" is worth nothing but its
market influence is *damaging*.

And what makes me wonder even more, even "sane" company spokespersons
do refer to Gartner, increasing our universe enthropy and contributing
to Gartner's reputation. For me it is just lack of responsibility.
Every time you make a non-critical reference to Garter, Jesus cries and 
your karma falls below asolute zero.

About this given particular report, i found it most annoying that it is
simply ignored the McAfee/SC acquisition and impaired McAfee's
"comleteness of vision" or how do they call it. For sime obscure reason
Gartner *always* hated SC ;-) Seems that Gartner "analysts" either have no
clue about firewall technologies at all or just were bribed by Checkpoint 
for years (who needs Checkpoint today? ;-)

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:13:27PM -0500, Victor Williams wrote:
> The funniest part is that I assume the report is meant to be taken 
> seriously, except "Magic" is part of its title.  Actually, it doesn't 
> get any funnier than that.
>
> On 5/20/2010 6:10 PM, ArkanoiD wrote:
> > http://www.paloaltonetworks.com/literature/whitepapers/Gartner-Magic-Quadrant2010.pdf
> >
> > ..pure, organic, unblended BULLSHIT.
> > _______________________________________________
> > firewall-wizards mailing list
> > firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
> > https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
> >
> >   
>
>
> email protected and scanned by AdvascanTM - keeping email useful - 
> www.advascan.com 

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards