usual ect gibberish
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| incinerator Aug 30, 2006 12:31 AM EDT |
yeah yeah, this is just the normal ECT group article. Who doesn't know, ECT is the company that does linuxoutsider.com, as well. They just keep on going with their "we-sit-on-our-deserted-island-and-write-whatever-any-given-analyst-tells-us" attitude. No to mention that the article is incoherent, badly structured and fails to give a clear message. A monkey could have typed that. I don't like to be brainwashed by clueless people. |
| dinotrac Aug 30, 2006 2:59 AM EDT |
ummm...OK. So, what about the actual content of the article did you not like. From what I can see, the article is correct. That is one reason, I believe, for the popularity of Websphere. It is also a phenomenon I witnessed in several of the places I've worked over the last 25 years. Heck, a lot of shops would proudly proclaim their "true blue" (all IBM) status when you interviewed with them. It seems a lot easier when there's only one direction for your finger to point. |
| incinerator Aug 30, 2006 4:48 AM EDT |
ok, lets go about it then: 1st paragraph: I seriously doubt that only "a minority of organisations" are looking for a single source of IT infrastructure to provide them with absolutely everything. Big businesses can afford to have more than one IT providers. Small businesses will do lots of their stuff by themselves and will not want to on a single IT provider to supply them with everything. The first paragraph simply cites a (way to much) simplified conclusion without mentioning any of the assumptions of that "research" conducted. 2nd paragraph: "operating systems OR application vendors". Following that articles argument, the "or" should be an "and". Inconsistent. Btw, who the **** is 451 group? Are they from Nigeria or what? 3rd paragraph: That statement doesn't seem to be wrong in the first place, but is based on the old mindset of non-free software, having to buy up a company or make a contract with them to get support for the software they support. If that was the case with Free Software, I would wonder why so many GNU/Linux distribution do still survive. The writer of this article obviously doesn't realise that in the world of Free Software, you can simply look at an applications' source code in order to investigate problems or adapt it to your needs. I simply do not need to buy another company in order to integrate their software into my "product" anymore, therefore that paragraph is redundant. Additionally, it nicely displays the lack of clue on the writer's side. "Changing the Stack": The next two paragraph do not tell anything about anyone changing any stack, the title is therefore pure rubbish. Btw, what is a "pure-play open source stack provider" anyway? The writer of this article obviously lives on the moon and thinks all software, including Free Software, comes from companies who want nothing more than to make money on it. Well, why do they publish Free Software in the first place, then? Why do these "stack providers" (btw, the writer doesn't have a clue what a stack is, either) have to adapt, then? True, if anyone can have a look at their source code there will be more competition for the support, but how does Trolltech survive, then? The author completely disregards things dual-licensing schemes and the fact that "people" want to have competent providers supporting their IT infrastructure. Well, who can be more competent than the folks who wrote the "pure-play stack" in the first place? "Altering Strategies": Ok, several IT providers have changed their strategies. But what has that to do with the things written before? Absolutely nothing! As a logical consequence, the author miserably fails at making any kind of connection between this section of the article and the stuff written above. The reasons cited for certain providers changing their "strategy" might or might have not anything to do with "stack convergence". The author fails to make clear what the real causes are and instead simply cites some generic catch-all phrases like "we believe that this-and-that market is more lucrative for us." "Ushering Open Source": Ok, so IT providers "educate" their customers about Free Software. What do they do, then? Inviting clueless managers to meetings and presenting shiny pp slides with lots of coloured diagrams. Hahaha. I'm not so sure it is the IT providers who drive Free Software adoption, and there's no reason to believe a so-call analyst here, either. There are many causes why companies choose Free Software. If the writer's argument about "the IT providers urging them to do so" would be true, how could Free Software have become so successful at all then. Not so many years ago, all the big IT providers knew, and many of them haven't become more clueful either, was MS and perhaps Solaris. So what is causing what now? I admit I don't know/ The author doesn't know either but he still claims he does, bah. "Considering Complexity": Well, the first paragraph actually makes sense for a change. In reality, many organisations (the bigger ones in particular) have to rely on multi-source IT support simply because there's no other option. In many cases things have grown from the past and no-one ever bothered to disrupt business by migrating to a single IT provider. I dispute the second paragraph: It seems "business" people can only think in terms of "client" and "provider" or whatever. Growing complexity is a problem, of course. But I see no reason why a company cannot use a more self-organised approach instead of contracting one single IT provider to bofh them all. Again, neither the author nor that Mr. Dana Gardner really seem to have a clue about the technology they're discussing. "A Dynamic Market": Wow, the Free Software Industry is highly dynamic and rapidly evolving. That's sooo big news for all of us, haha. The last two paragraphs are simply a free marketing opportunity for Mr. Sicksource and consequentially full of clueless-businessman-talks-about-compters-gibberish. I think we can disregard that section safely. And btw, in all this article, there was never a direct reference to that so-called "research" that ominous 451 group has allegedly performed. If that stuff's so great, why hasn't it been published then? All the author does cite is some dodgy analysts and application providers who have a vested interest in making their products look good. Why did the author not actually ask any of the "clients" he seems to refer to all the time, then? |
| dinotrac Aug 30, 2006 6:06 AM EDT |
incinerator - I think you need to go back and read the article more slowly -- for comprehension. We will start and end with your "first paragraph" critique: >I seriously doubt that only "a minority of organisations" are looking for a single source of IT infrastructure to provide them with absolutely everything. Ummm...That's not what the article said. It said only a minority or organizations were looking to Open Source stack providers to fill that role. You are free to disagree. I would bet they are right. >Big businesses can afford to have more than one IT providers. Small businesses will do lots of their stuff by themselves and will not want to on a single IT provider to supply them with everything. OK - Now you are arguing against yourself. First you doubt that only a minority want a single source, then you say most don't -- which means only a minority do. Which doesn't really matter, because that is not what the article said. FYI -- Years ago, I worked for EDS. We were in the business of being a single source for IT infrastructure serving companies that were big enough to buy from multiple sources. |
| incinerator Aug 30, 2006 6:36 AM EDT |
>OK - Now you are arguing against yourself. First you doubt that only a minority want a single source, then you say most don't -- which means only a minority do. Exactly, there are many different reasons to go one way or another, many of them are unrelated to whether the company in question does use Free Software or not. The trend these 451 folks allegedly perceive simply doesn't exist. >FYI -- Years ago, I worked for EDS. We were in the business of being a single source for IT infrastructure serving companies that were big enough to buy from multiple sources. Fair enough, but that's just one example. It depends on the nature of the business what way to go. You cannot simply argue that companies look for single-source IT solution these days just because some analysts said so, but that's exactly what the author is doing. He's painting a picture that has nothing to do with reality. |
| dinotrac Aug 30, 2006 7:05 AM EDT |
>He's painting a picture that has nothing to do with reality. I don't know. The only picture he painted is that most people looking for single source IT solutions are not going to providers of Open Source stacks. I'll bet that's probably true. I'll bet most of them aren't going to IBM, either. It's probably safe to say that most of them aren't going any one way. My experience has been that some organizations really do like to use integrators as a single point of contact. They have choices, including folks -- both large and small -- who have been around for a long time. I would not expect Open Source Stack providers to be at the top of many lists. But think about it -- 5 years ago, Linux, MySQL, and PHP weren't at the top of very many corporate lists, either. Things change, and the new guy tends to be the little guy at the beginning. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!