Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
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 | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |