A common way of flaming a technology, consisting of: * Assert requirements or characteristics that any good system doing X (which the system in question, Y, is designed to do) must have. * Observe that the system Y doesn't meet one or more of the asserted requirements. * Proclaim that because of this deficiency, system Y "sucks". This argument is frequently fallacious for many reasons: * The asserted requirements may in fact be intractible, irrelevant, or otherwise lacking in validation. ** Suckage, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Or the customer. * In many cases, the asserted requirements are far in excess of what the system was originally designed for. (In other words, if you DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork, someone whose requirements you ''didn't'' meet will proclaim loudly that it sucks). * The absence of any systems which ''do'' meet the asserted requirements (or if such a system exists, it's a prototype which has its own deficiencies or is otherwise not ready for production use). * Finally, it should be noted that phrases like "sucks", "piece of shit", "garbage", etc. are frequently overused; and really don't have a place in serious technical or scholarly debate. They are ConversationalChaff. (But it's chaff that's fun to engage in, as it gives the ol' ego a boost to summarily dismiss someone's hard work with a four-letter rejoinder. I must admit guilt here myself...). It's better to point out what a given technology can or cannot do, and how these restrictions limit its applicability. ''It should also be noted here that there are occasions wherein the use of such terms are applicable; that descriptors of lesser venom may have been used in the past and failed to carry the necessary weight of condemnation. Thusly, "This !@#$!! piece of !#$%^! sucks out loud!!" may be needed as a marker of final attribution of a system or component's usefulness. After such an outburst brings needed attention to the object of reference all parties may then focus on moving on.'' ---- CategorySucks