AB <fardblossom@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On 2007-03-25, John Locke <johnlocke98513@xxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>> When I worked for the government, our small research group was running
>> OS/2 Warp (version 1, I believe) on IBM PCs with micro channel
>> architecture.
>>
>> This was a very advanced OS for the time. The rest of the agency was
>> still running DOS. Then came orders from the director that we must
>> "standardize". We were told we had to remove OS/2 and install Windows
>> 3.1 & later 3.1 Windows for Workgroups.
>>
>> It was like going from the space age to the stone age. What a shock
>> to go from a robust, in-depth OS to a piece of junk.
>
> That's the same feeling I get when I leave home and linux to go to work
> and have to face XP.
>
The argument for standardisation has raged for years; we get the same
thing in terms of equipment suppliers, too. The argument being that if
we have the same set of suppliers everywhere, things will be magically
cheaper. Unfortunately, this argument completely collapses in the face
of the cost of lock-in. If you standardise on a single vendor of
proprietary capability, then that vendor has you over the proverbial
barrel. The *only* way to stop that lock-in from happening in a
proprietary environment is to have as many suppliers as it takes to
reduce the exit-cost of any particular supplier down to a level where
the lock-in is no longer effective.
Of course, as the OP said, moving from OS/2 to Win 3.1 must've been a
singularly depressing experience.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
