🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 07:04:24 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:39:17 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
>> <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
>>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>>>>> solves itself.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>>>>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>>>> 
>>>> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
>>>> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
>>>> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
>>>> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
>>>> platforms, then it is not a win.
>>>> 
>>> What features are unique to Windows?
>> 
>> The whole Component Object Model for one thing.  There may be
>> equivalents on other platforms but if we can't take our existing code
>> and plunk it onto the new system and have it work the same way then
>> it's a net cost for us.
>> 
>
>As I said, if it's working there's no money to be made by switching to
>something else, even something better. 

Make a convincing case for the "betterness".  One that the people in
the trenches will buy, not one that some manager will buy.  Our
systems keep getting more and more and more complex because various
"consultants" keep convincing management that they have something
"better" than our "klunky old COBOL and APL", and so we have a half a
dozen other systems in place supporting various products.  A hundred
years from now our systems are going to be a rolling museum of a human
lifetime of computer industry fads.