I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

[J.Pluta]

I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

I picture the collaboration with IBM about the same as the collaboration with Steve Jobs - just long enough to steal the technology and bolt. OS/2 when released was still a great operating system, it just didn't have a solid GUI yet. You'll never hear a straight story, but from the people I worked with, IBM was tasked to do the kernel and Microsoft the GUI. IBM got their part right (which went on to become not only OS/2 but NT), while Microsoft mysteriously never managed to get their part working. The biggest problem with OS/2 in the early days was the cost, and secondarily the complexity. Remember, at this point it was dealing with Window 3.1, which was little more than a GUI manager on top of DOS. It was buggy, unstable and crashed a lot, but it ran on cheap hardware and was simple to install, and ran on those clones that PC's Unlimited (remember them?) was selling for next to nothing. OS/2, on the other hand, was a true multi-tasking operating system and required a ton of memory (as much as 4MB! ) as well as being locked into IBM hardware, which was VERY expensive at the time. Remember back then IBM was trying to corner the market on PC's by developing a proprietary hardware standard. Anyway, there were a lot of reasons that OS/2 stumbled, but IBM could stil have picked up the ball. They had by far the superior product and had they embraced the clones from the start, life would have been a lot different. Personally, I think the PS/2 killed OS/2, or at least shoved it into the background. Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

David said: "Yes, IBM did pull the plug on OS/2, but they didn't pull it first. OS/2 was originally a collaboration between IBM and Microsoft. " Ok, let's replace Microsoft with Sun and OS/2 with Java and reread your statment. Do you feel any safer travelling that road today? Sun is very shaky on Java and only used it as a control mechanism, as did MS with OS/2. Will the rug you are standing on be yanked? Maybe, maybe not. I feel fortunate, I'm not on that rug. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[Guest.Visitor]

I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

I got it now. If someone thinks it's offensive then we must clam up. No wiggle room here, no difference of opinion, no discussion on who can judge what is offensive, the judges have spoken. In fact, no opinion at all should be allowed because someone might consider it offensive. Don't tell me that you were reacting to my post. Your claim that what I said is offensive is your opinion, not mine. If you are saying is that your opinion outweighs mine then so be it. But say that, don't beat around the bush. In fact, I think the whole tone of censurism by you and others is hugely offensive. I expect you will think otherwise. But, in our new rules of this forum, thinking otherwise is not allowed, eh? I expect this to be the end of the discussion because everything I say is offensive and everything you say is offensive. The thought police will have to shut this forum down if we continue. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Joe Pluta" wrote in message news:6aec5ef3.30@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Chuck: speaking MY mind is unacceptable > > No, Chuck, being offensive is unacceptable, from anyone. You just do it more than anyone else. > > Joe

[J.Pluta]

I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

Chuck, comparing an adult's actions to those of a teenaged girl is offensive and unnecessary. That's not thought police, it's simple good manners. A good rule of thumb to keep a comment from becoming personal rather than professional is to avoid the use of the word "you". It's not foolproof by any means, and of course anybody can twist the rule, but used in good faith it's a way to make sure the message focuses on the content of the post, rather than on the poster. It's not THAT big a deal; I don't usually bother to comment because even when they're condescending, I think your posts tend to contain thoughtful content (even if I don't agree with the opinion expressed). It's just that the particular post in question seemed more disrespectful than usual and I decided to say so. Personally, I often enjoy reading your comments; they usually solidify my view and occasionally even make me rethink my position. But sometimes the tone blinds me to the content. Personal problem, perhaps, because I'm occasionally guilty of the same sort of rhetoric. Maybe that's why I key in on it so quickly. Anyway, 'nuff said. Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

I thought that a forum was a place for the exchange of IDEAS, not name calling. I don't want you to clam up. Do you realize that you make it uncomfortable for me sometimes, by making statements that make it that your way is right and everyone else is wrong. I know I come off as rough around the edges sometimes, but I cleary state what is my opinion, even if it is: in my opinion everyone that I know does this. When you put your disclaimer that it is your opinion, it doesn't mean much when you say that someone's idea is childish. And even if he is childish, I want to hear his idea if he is making money with it, because I might be able to use it. Disagreeing is one thing, stateing opinions is another, and comparing someones idea to that of a child is entirely different. Now I have a question for you Chuck, how is it not censorship when you disagree with someones idea and you change it to talk bad about the person( which I don't come here for, didn't know that was the purpose of this place), and then claim the disscusion is over? Craig Thibodeaux

[Guest.Visitor]

I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

Here's an article that goes on to claim that more jobs will be lost in the future due to improved information technology than to outsourcing, many more. Yet I'd be willing to bet that none of us on this forum will be enraged enough to go to congress to ask them to limit Technology. Maybe because we're in the technology field that we don't really care that we're eliminating service industry jobs? http://news.com.com/Smart+systems+wi...l?tag=nefd.top In fact, the technology advances are actually more damaging to jobs. Technology ELIMINATES jobs entirely, it doesn't just move them to cheaper labor in a different country. IMO, though, neither are evil, it's just part of the job creation/destruction process that has been occurring since the industrial age started. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[Guest.Visitor]

I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

Joe said: "Chuck, comparing an adult's actions to those of a teenaged girl is offensive and unnecessary. That's not thought police, it's simple good manners." In your opinion, of course. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[Guest.Visitor]

I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

Joe said: "I'm occasionally guilty of the same sort of rhetoric. Maybe that's why I key in on it so quickly." I'm guilty of having 3 teenage daughters. ;-) chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[Guest.Visitor]

I.T. or outsourcing, which is the greater evil?

ctibode: "Do you realize that you make it uncomfortable for me sometimes, by making statements that make it that your way is right and everyone else is wrong." Actually, I do that on purpose. I have been participating in the midrange forums since the old Newslink days of the late '80s. And, there's one thing I've found out for sure is that midrange forums tend to be myopic. Most of the times the solution to everything was the AS/400. I realized later when the forum participants expanded their view to include OS/2 as an acceptable solution along with the AS/400 that many of the participants had a the myopic view of "anything IBM does is the way it should be." Today, the forums take on the tone of i5, Linux and Java. Anything else that isn't promoted by IBM is bad, ESPECIALLY if it's Microsoft. I didn't believe that then and certainly don't believe it today. So, I have become sensitized to the terms "everyone I know," or "anyone using Microsoft is a bozo," etc. I tend to react to such keywords with gusto. Many people take gusto with intolerence or become uncomfortable. I'm just trying to lean hard in the other direction to keep the sailboat from ending keel up. (I'm sorry that you feel uncomfortable by this, but I won't ask you to change, just eliminate viewing any post from me. Your newsreader should have that capability.) Anyway, I hear these claims of "using Microsoft is terribly expensive," using Linux is terribly cheap. Well, you know what? I've used both, and in large deployments. In my experience, neither claim is accurate. In fact, I know from experience that large deployments of Linux, especially on the desktop is MORE costly. IMO, those making such claims aren't experienced enough to make them or are looking at a small piece of the ROI. It's realatively simple, IMO. Just craft responses that take on the necessary caveats such as, "in my travels, I haven't found that...," or "many shops use Linux instead of Exchange because...," etc. When someone uses a small minority as an example and tries to claim it as mainstream that triggers a challenge by me. ctibode said: "When you put your disclaimer that it is your opinion, it doesn't mean much when you say that someone's idea is childish. " When did I ever say someone is childish? I don't recall that. That is the interpretation to which others have lept. I can't be responsible for people jumping over gaps. I did compare him to a teenager, but I have a teenager attending a large major university. I would never describe her as childish. However, the teenager does still tend to use terms that try to pursuade her agument such as "everybody's been there," or "everybody I know is doing it." ctibode asked: "Now I have a question for you Chuck, how is it not censorship when you disagree with someones idea and you change it to talk bad about the person( which I don't come here for, didn't know that was the purpose of this place), and then claim the disscusion is over?" My claim that the discussion was over was tongue-in-cheek. Sorry I didn't add the ;-) to make it clear. My point was that the discussion is over if the McCarthy's of the forum require it to be over. ;-) chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.