"Warren Moore"<warren .
> Paul McNabb reputedly said:
> >> From: "Craig I. Hagan" <hagan @
> >> Consider: a small office wants to firewall off its finance department
> >> which has ~5-20 people. Everyone uses 10M ethernet. the system should
> >> work
> >> during business hours. An occasional outage is reasonable, after all,
> >> the
> >> desktops also wipe out every now and then, too.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Isn't it sad that after more than 15 years of building and selling
> >of millions of desktop systems and seeing trillions of dollars of revenue,
> >we have come to accept unstable, hacked-together systems as normal and
> >reasonable instead of shocking and unforgiveable?
> Even more so when you consider that the poor old dinosaur mainframe,
> running obsolete systems in (gasp) COBOL, BAL, PL/1, etc....that *everyone*
> knows will be replaced by client/server and *nix/windoze/etc....still gives
> you 24x7 for years at a time. 8>) Of course, they've been around for 43
> years now...maybe by 2021 the desktops will have caught up.
I think you are overly optimistic :-( The big problem with the stability of
most of these "new technologies" has more to do with cultural issues than
technical issues. I would imagine that the "poor old dinosaur mainframes"
would have a stability problem too, if the users of the systems were able
to download the latest "cool app" from the net and install it.
Most organizations that I have seen are not willing to spend the amount of
money need to support a computer on everyone's desk. And why should they?
After all these are commodity items, like a toaster, you just have to plug
it in and go. Right? Why do you need all the overhead of change managment,
QA, etc. for a PC?
I wish M$soft the best of luck with their zero administration initiative,
I'm just not holding my breath for it to happen.