Post by: cdub1988 on December 22, 2003, 08:31:50 AM
I am not going to post the entire content of the message, but I HAD to share this comment from the guy who responded.
DST Systems is a major IT firm in the KC Metro and this guy has worked there for some time. Thought it was really funny he made this comment at the end of his statement in defense of Linux.
QUOTE
"I've said it before and I'll say it again. If everyone used Macs, I'd be
out of a job."
- Kevin
out of a job."
- Kevin
Made me feel pretty good as a Mac user.
Take care and have a wonderful Christmas, all.
Chris
Post by: Mrious_be on December 22, 2003, 12:56:07 PM
Have a good christmass and newyear
Post by: kbeartx on December 22, 2003, 04:00:51 PM
I've read opinions that indicate this as the primary driving force behind the almost total Windoze takeover of the corporate IT environment, and IMO the theory has a lot of merit.
Many IT managers prefer computing systems that need constant troubleshooting, fixing, and upgrading b/c it increases their perceived (and actual, in a Wintel World) value to the enterprise and consequently their importance and influence.
- kbeartx
Post by: RHPConsult on December 23, 2003, 10:17:01 AM
I also surmise that the facts include, probably, key decisions made long ago that were small (at the time), reasonable, yet brimming with unintended consequences, rather than the playing out of some Grande Conspiratorial Scheme.
IBM had accumulated 30-40 years of excellent reputation for superb corporate customer service (whether with typewriters or card sorters!) by that time in the late 70s when, by contracting Billy’s help with their software dilemmas, they coincidentally presented him with the world on a platter. IBM had always fixed promptly whatever the customer needed, building thereby powerful relationships (good business!). When DOS arrived, it was merely another source of other problems, which would need fixing, as it also brought new benefits to corporate performance. Nobody even thought that computers could/would ever be personal . . . or fun. Or able one to do both "old" work easier, or "new" work for new accomplishments. Fun was something you did/had with “toys”. Nobody had ever heard of the Steves and their hardy band . . . yet.
And, do you think there was 1 CEO in a 1000 that “understood” what was happening? I well recall a CEO client of mine who, in 1981 or so, bought a new IBM “personal” computer for each of his VPs, telling each to take it home and "learn" DOS. Oh, sure . . . riiight!
When I asked him what he did with his, he said it was somewhere up on a closet shelf at home!!!!
IT expenses (growing by leaps and bounds) were simply additional costs of doing (new) business
In that same client company, I also recall the distress suffered in IT when the HR department finally acquired Macs for itself, because it wanted to keep much of its confidential documentation under closer control and off the mainframe. Ah, “control”, again.
So the development of the dependence of employees on IT, and IT on IBM/M$ was “normal” until it was too big to be (easily) changed or redirected. Sorta the way things were supposed to be. Most Macs were present then, as I suspect they are today, because some knowledgable individual knew their towering advantages and was able to finagle one or more for specific tasks.
My 2¢
Post by: krissel on December 23, 2003, 10:56:24 PM
Is it any coincidence that the tech high point was around the Y2K time period?
How many billions of dollars were spent upgrading and reviewing code that was poorly written and did not account for the end of the century?
We will probably never know how much of that code was intentionally "underwritten" so the need for tech assistance and payment for software, etc. would be a necessity. I think this was one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the consuming and manufacturing public.
Once the year 2000 milestone was passed and there wasn't an end to the world as we knew it, those extra techies weren't needed, thus began the recession.
Hmmm ... I wonder if Macs aren't used more widespread in order to maintain the employment figures at a reasonable rate...kind of like the thinking that keeps the department of defense spending big bucks for armaments to help keep the economy rolling...
