Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The CIO's argument hinges on the assumption that Microsoft software fits together into some grand design. In my experience this is simply false. If you buy all the products they put out in one calendar year there is good synergy. Three years down the road, it's a very, very different story. Microsoft in particular keeps doing this because they rush to adopt certain technology paradigms, badly, and then spend the next several years undoing their mistakes. But the problem with any single-vendor shop is that they make their money by breaking the beautiful crystalline palace they sold you last year. Incompatibility is a profit center. That doesn't mean the cost of dealing with the single-vendor isn't lower than OSS. Even if we fantasize about a more mature OSS-based applications market, integration would still be a constant struggle. BTW, I'm rather suprised you've never heard that argument before; it's *the* argument that MS promulgates, AFAICT.
    • The CIO's argument hinges on the assumption that Microsoft software fits together into some grand design.

      To some extent, he's right.

      First, concede the desktop. Windows, Office, VisualStudio, Outlook, etc. are the corporate standard in 99.44% of the corporate world.

      Next, the department level. Standard capabilities like file/print sharing, email and web serving can be performed by anything slightly more powerful than a PalmOS device. Most companies standardize on Windows here out of ignorance; je