Archived from groups: comp.sys.hp.hardware,comp.sys.hp.hpux (
More info?)
IT organizations also bought into the hype and sorry implementation of
WordBasic, VB scripts, Word and Excel macros, .NET and all the other Micro$oft
tommyrot that locks people into the Microsoft way of doing things. Using
OpenOffice, one can produce documents, spreadsheets, and presentations which are
largely compatible with Word .DOCs, Excel .XLSs, and PowerPoint PPTs. But now
add in the dependence on the other stuff, and one ends up with an extremely
expensive conversion and retraining project just to get people up and running
with OpenOffice (or StarOffice or AnyOtherOffice)... Ben
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:16:18 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu>
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:28:53 GMT
>ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>> >That hasn't been the case with SCSI for a very long time.
>> >The idea that disk drives were built for a particular computer
>> >line effectively died with the SMD interface in the late 1970ies.
>> >
>>
>> Not quite true. Companies like EMC and StorageTek, to name two, manage
>> to cobble up their proprietary hardware to eliminate the possibility of
>> using any SCSI drive except their own branded drives burned with special
>> EMC or StorageTek, respectively, firmware.
>
>There's an acceptable reason for that - both manufacture
>intelligent storage subsystems, and the requirements are
>quite specific. Plus, of course, their typical customer would
>have a service contract so the price and/or ease of second
>sourcing doesn't enter into it.
>That being said, most suppliers modify (or at least put
>their logo/name) SCSI firmware, but it hardly ever causes
>major problems (I once had to reformat a Compaq SCSI disk
>to get rid of its 510 byte sector size. It came from one of
>their storage arrays, IIRC. It's still running in a Sun as
>we post
>
>> Even Intel underestimated this with its lame Itanic.
>
>Plus, of course, they and all the workstation manufacturers
>underestimated the need for 64 bit address spaces. Even now,
>the vast majority of applications runs handsomely in 32 bits.
>
>> As far as Windows goes, I really appreciate the strong stand taken by
>> Mario Monti and his band of merry men against Microsoft. (Are they so
>> merry? Probably they are pretty dour.)
>
>The inside joke is that they fined MS roughly what they've
>paid them in license fees. For all its bluster, the Commission
>is a Microsoft fan, and it costs them dearly too. The last
>three weeks their Exchange servers have been overloaded, and
>mostly unable to accept incoming mail.
>
>> Linux on the desktop is getting better and better, and enough
>> companies and enterprises are totally pissed off with Microsoft that
>> they are considering or implementing Linux alternatives, sometimes at
>> great initial cost.
>
>That's not really a correct assessment. If the costs are huge,
>it is because IT staff has been hopelessly dumbed down since
>the appearance of MS in the datacentre. Management bought lock,
>stock and barrel into MS' marketing hype that managing Windows
>was easy, and didn't require competent staff. In addition, the
>ever-changing Wintel hardware makes it very difficult to image
>an OS installation to new PCs. I know of an organisation that
>entered into a contract with Dell for the supply of thousands
>of PCs over a three year period _provided all the drivers
>remained stable_. After a year, Dell had to resign the contract
>because they could no longer source the required components.
>Plus, of course, Microsoft lacks the equivalent of Sun's
>Jumpstart, which allows one to install a new Sun by simply
>plugging it in.
>
>> We may have differences, semantic or otherwise, about what is
>> proprietary and what is not...
>
>but we clearly agree Windows is part of the problem, not
>part of the solution
>
>Take care,
>
>--
>Stefaan
>--
>"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram