I will add this caveat - the reason the doomsayers were wrong about Y2K is
because the collective lot of us who twiddle code across the globe took
GREAT steps to ensure it was a non problem.
My relatives kept asking me if things were going to fail, and I said a few
minor things will go wonky, but nothign major we depend on because my
colleagues across the world were making sure the problem was eradicated.
If we had done nothing as an industry however, all hell would have broken
loose.
Gartner also said the mainframe was dead 8 years ago. I guess the Z900 and
Z800 in my datacenter are not supposed to exist . In any case, there are
those that believe that the sun rises and sets in the posterior crevasse of
the gartner group, and their word is law.
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Hall, Ken (IDS |
| | ECCS)" |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | ml.com> |
| | Sent by: Linux on|
| | 390 Port |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | IST.EDU> |
| | |
| | |
| | 07/24/2003 01:20 |
| | PM |
| | Please respond to|
| | Linux on 390 Port|
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: Gartner speaks
|
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
*My* experience with Gartner is that they just parrot what the last few
customers told them about whatever you're asking. I'd call and ask about
some product or other, and they'd give me an opinion.
If I disagreed with it, they REALLY wanted to know why, and I'm sure
whatever I told them worked it's way into their position. They seem to do
research by dynamic consensus. But this is pretty much
what they say they do, isn't it? Do no independent research, just collect
opinions from subscribers, and redistribute them.
With Y2K, I guess they were hearing overblown paranoid doomsday scenarios,
and just repeating them like they do with everything else, paying no
attention to what was REALLY going on. Probably they
didn't hear about all of the work being done because those doing it were
too busy to talk to them. The only ones who DID talk had nothing better to
do than fret.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg C Levine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 2:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Gartner speaks
>
>
> Hello again from Gregg C Levine
> Then how come during the Y2K business, they bungled it badly? They
> thought that during the craze to get everything fixed, the group,
> would not? But we did, as everyone on this list, knows.
> -------------------
> Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
> "Use the Force, Luke."� Obi-Wan Kenobi
> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of
> > Adam Thornton
> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:43 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Gartner speaks
> >
> > On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 07:08, Joe Poole wrote:
> > > We're still rolling out the penguins (without fur BTW). Websphere
> > > Commerce Suite is the latest effort, running in test instances.
> Our
> > > CIO is in "wait and see" mode, as are we all. Attorneys agree.
> > > Without proof, there's no reason to stop.
> >
> > It's been my perception for a number of years that Gartner is
> largely a
> > Microsoft mouthpiece.
> >
> > Oh, and, by the way:
> >
> > I own copyright over code that 95% of the Windows code out there
> > infringes on. I refuse to show it to you or anyone, because it's a
> > trade secret. But I demand that each and every one of you who have
> ever
> > so much as *seen* a computer running Windows immediately pay me
> $1000.
> > PER COMPUTER. Or else I'm going to sue. So just Paypal it to me,
> OK?
> >
> > Adam
>
