> That doesn't make much sense. Your grandmother (or mine, at least) is no
> more capable of making sound technology choices than she is of telling me
> what stocks to buy. We are talking about technology here, right? If the
> aforementioned CIOs are less interested in good technology than they are
> in good marketing, they aren't very good CIOs. Bad technology well
> marketed is still bad technology. No magic there.
You assume that CIO's are measured in technical terms. Frankly,
if something works it frequently needn't work well to be accepted.
The Model-T Ford was noone's idea if the best technology but it did
work and was cheap enough for people to afford. It sold. I used to
work for GM. Trust me, quality frequently has little to do with
people's choices. If the CIO of a large company cut his/her/it's
teeth on IBM Cornball they may not have very good personal tools
for evaulating client-server technology. To them Java looks like
Everything You Ever Wanted In A Language. Add to that the adage
that anything repeated often enough becomes truth and, Viola!, you
have a language.
