Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Amazon: Linux saved us millions



Jerry Feldman wrote:

> IBM used to target the top management. But the decision makers are 
> frequently the IT department managers, such as the CTO or the IT VP.  
> Also, the IT department people themselves chose Windows. 
> Reason:
> 1. they can force everyone in the company to use the same email 
> program, Outlook or Outlook express because it works better with their 
> [mis]exchange servers.
> 2. They can force everyone to use the same office tools, such as Office 
> 2000 or Office XP.


So, some people are saying that it's the business pinheads who push for 
Microsoft. As they are technical doofi, that's why we are where we are. 
And now, Jerry's saying that actually, it's the IT people for reasons x, 
  y, and z. I was with a small .com where the CEO was worried about 
price and went with Microsoft. I was with a big .com where the CTO was a 
big a Microsoft freak as you could imagine (ended up having a Microsoft 
"case study" written on us BLEARGH (maybe why he was so keen on using it 
in the first place...hmmm...)). His IT department got on my case for 
bringing in a Mac (they didn't have a computer for me.) Supposedly, the 
Mac could only access the Internet through AppleTalk (WTF?!!?) and thus 
screw up their network.

I guess what bugs me though is that there are multiple reasons why 
Microsoft is where it is today, but I often see a lot of grousing from 
anti-Microsoft people who say that Microsoft is where it is today 
because of widespread stupidity.

Markets behave the way they do for a reason. Not always a good reason, 
particularly in the short term, but over the long term, markets have 
some logical rationale for behaving they way that they do. Maybe not a 
"fair" rationale from an ethical sense, but at least a logical one.

Saying that sheer marketing to dimwits explains todays market seems odd. 
  Or quality does not matter. These business / technology people are 
retards, and yet, these same retards make the purchasing and 
implementation decisions which implies some sort of authority. Or that 
the products suck bigtime, and yet many people still use them. I have 
similar problems with folks who point out that dominant players for 
their time (Lotus, IBM, Novell, Borland, Netscape, Apple, etc.) were 
also a bunch of morons that were easily trumped by somebody with half a 
brain (i.e., Bill Gates). Yet, somehow these morons got to be major 
players in the first place.

Maybe Windows is where it is because they actually turn out decent 
products for the target that they're intended to. Maybe Bill Gates is a 
smart business guy. Maybe Microsoft is where it is by some blatantly 
illegal activities that a government was too slow to see. Maybe 
Microsoft is where it is because UNIX splintered, leading to proprietary 
software running on proprietary hardware. I'm sure that stupidity plays 
a role here and there, but c'mon....

These reasons make more sense to me. More importantly, they give me 
something to plan against by saying "how do I stop this? What do I need 
to do to reverse this condition?"

It beats: "this whole condition is a reality fart of cosmic proportions."

Steve









BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org