Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.org.team-os2,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!night.primate.wisc.edu!caen!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!usenet.ufl.edu!zeno.fit.edu!ccurtis From: ccurtis@ee.fit.edu (Christopher W. Curtis) Subject: Re: Is Microsoft's Internet plan more about its love of power than about users? Message-ID: <ccurtis.833152393@ee.fit.edu> Sender: news@zeno.fit.edu (USENET NEWS SYSTEM) Nntp-Posting-Host: pram.ee.fit.edu Organization: Florida Tech, CP/EE Dept. X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #20 References: <4mlpnf$d4p@sidhe.memra.com> <4mqq8o$6js@news.aros.net> <4mrg49$pok@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4muhf9$giv@phobos.Candle.Com> <4npu4t$c7j@access1.digex.net> Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:13:13 GMT Lines: 88 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.fan.bill-gates:22617 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc:107655 comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc:142112 comp.os.os2.advocacy:205355 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:109216 comp.os.linux.advocacy:50274 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:20119 In <4npu4t$c7j@access1.digex.net> rdd@access1.digex.net (R. D. Davis) writes: >In article <4muhf9$giv@phobos.Candle.Com>, >Ralph Goers <rgoer@rgoer.candle.com> wrote: >>Dumb is perhaps not the right word. Ignorant seems to fit better. Part >>of this ignorance is simply based on cost. It costs "real" money to >>learn something new so many simply choose to stick with whatever seems >I fail to underatand why you say that one must spend money to learn >anything new. Why can't people just read manuals, etc. and ask other For business, this costs money. These people are being "paid" to learn how to use the 'new' (different/better) software. The only fallacy of business is the belief that all Microsoft products stay consistent across each revision. >>familiar. The problem with this mentality is that this also has a cost, >>but it is in "hidden" dollars. Many IS departments insist on >>standardizing on software because it makes it easier for THEM, not their >>users. >Oh fiddle-faddle. The numbskulls in many MIS departments are like >blind sheep on mind-mumbing medication - from what I can tell, they >often choose products which make some random company executives happy, >who know little about computers, other than reading in some random >business publication how great, and how popular, Microsoft [or whaver >is said to be the "in" thing at the moment] type products, and IBM >type PCs, are., etc. This is senseless and foolish. This depends on your MIS manager. Some of them may not even use the computer aside from rudimentary tasks. Unfortunatley, it seems that the more powerful the MIS manager, the less time they have to spend actually evaluating software. Low-level MIS people and companies that do not have very-high-level MIS people aren't hindered as much by the MIS "Manager", but then thay often have to answer to bosses who think they know something about computers... >How else can one explain companies switching over to bletcherous >networks of IBM type PCs running Novell Netware from their trusty >VAXen running VMS, or hordes of IBM type PCs running MS-Windows being >used instead of terminals (text or X) attached to UNIX boxes, etc. On >the other hand, there are many Microsoft brainwashed MIS types out >there who are good at doing nasty deeds like convincing gullible >executives to spend lots of money to decommision the company's >minicomputers or mainframes and install IBM type PCish type whatevers >that run MS-DOS operating systems. I think the problem is that these "gullable executives" are running PCs under the commonplace market OS. THEY do not want to have to relearn what they already know (they often feel themselves much too important for such little tasks, or too important). Try telling your boss that s/he has to relearn how to use his/her computer for business standards. Then again, there are those MIS people who just don't have the "time" to sit with the hardware anymore... >>or better yet, get an OS with a REAL batch language built in (BTW - when >>IS Microsoft going to ship an OS with a real batch language built in?). >>These people probably spent a couple of hours figuring out how to do >>this stuff. Most of these things can be done in 5 minutes with REXX. >...and probably in less time on a UNIX system with shell scripts. Uhm, unless it involves screen objects, possibly ... :) Even *NIX shells can seem limited compared with the power of REXX. >>So gee, do we spend real $ getting the tool that will get the job done, >>or do we let our employees waste hours trying to figure out how to make >>the inadequate tool do the job that must be done? ... Or the more powerful and better adept, yet different, tool. >Well, there are better alternatives, such as FreeBSD, NetBSD or even >Linux, which don't cost anything, and, from what I can tell, often >work better than many commercial alternatives, as they were written by >people who are more interested in software that works properly than >software which is produced to meet marketing deadlines and has all of >the bugs concealed by the marketers. >This isn't to say that free software is bug free, but at least the >bugs which exist aren't hidden by fancy marketing and lied about. -- Christopher Curtis, Sun SysAdmin - http://www.ee.fit.edu/users/ccurtis Florida Institute of Technology - Melbourne, Florida USA - Member, Team OS/2 [Fanatics Division]