🚀 go-pugleaf

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 

It's got to be _a lot_ better to justify the cost of conversion, or else
some hardware/software upgrade has to break one of the components to force
a change.

-- 
Pete