>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 1998 at 06:04:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > While I tend to agree with some parts of Rich's comments, I do believe
> > that the vast number of applications packages for NT/95 tend to weigh in
> > favor of it's use on the desktop.
>
> Which raises an interesting question: How many, and which applications,
> do you *really* need?
Me, I don't use MS crap! I write my own for most things other than
e-mail (elm) and web server (Apache). But some of my clients... (shudder)
> Which makes sense. If you walk around most places and look over folks'
> shoulders, they live in those packages, often exclusively. For those
And moronically, too.
> of the people who fall into the group I described above? Is it so
> inconceivable that people who now use Windows XX to run their apps
> would be equally productive -- or *more* productive, running those
> same or similar apps under KDE on Linux? (Why "more"? Because those
> systems have performance that runs rings around Windows systems.
> Because they stay up. Because they can be networked in ways that
> Windows systems can't. And so on.)
They might actually learn to extend their productivity....
> But there's a larger question here, and one which frequently gets
> lost in big MIS departments run by pointy-haired CIOs.
> *WHY* are certain applications necessary?
Yes!!!
> Let me tell you a story. I spent most of last year doing a firewall
> consulting job, and part of that time was spent on-site. My half-cube
> happened to be next to another group working on a Really Strategic
> Project. The project? A Lotus Notes->Domino conversion/upgrade. This
> group of a half-dozen people spent at least six months getting ready to to
> The Big Rollout. (That's 3 man-years. Ka-ching!) They found that
> most of the desktops couldn't handle the new software, and so PC techs
Etc. Etc. Etc. And before you know it, three to five million
dollars down the hole! I've seen it! I've been asked to help pour that
money down the drain myself... and slit my throat explaining why it
wasn't wise to do so. Sometimes I think the better consultants are Hari
Kiri artists...
> And nobody ever looked outside the box and asked "Just what problem
> are we trying to solve here?"
Exactly! But just look boss, we are only spending $300 per user!
Now, putting them through a course on Unix... why we'd have to pay to have
someone give the course!
Gee, um, have you costed it out on a per icon cost? Or per menu cost
for a script vs an application? $2,000,000 seems like an awful lot just
to have graphics images on a menu bar... wouldn't text do??? (Not to
mention the little point that the graphics images are usually NOT OBVIOUS
AT ALL!!!)
What users want, is menus so they don't have to think. "Gee, I never
thought of that" can be Very expensive. As you just indirectly pointed
out. So they don't let these people think at all. (How was that again?
"I never thought of that" is expensive so they don't let them think???)
> If they had, they might have realized that a judicious combination
> of plain old mail and plain old netnews tied together with a little
> bit of software glue would have done the job, at a tiny fraction
> of the cost. (How do I know? Because I've done it. Many times,
> the first starting 15 years ago, and for a user community six times
> larger than the one they have. It works. And with zero training.)
Right!
> Oh sure, it's not fancy. It doesn't let people send memos with
> 18-point glowing red headers in Helvetica Italic. It doesn't have
> a zillion pull-down menus (the ones that require a training course
> to learn how to use). In point of fact, it doesn't have a lot of
> the extraneous, useless junk that make what ought to be an effective
> business communications tool into a "productivity application" --
> that is, an application which uses up all available productive time. ;-(
Right!
> The relevance here? If it's acknowledged that Application XYZ doesn't
> run on Unix/Linux and that's a problem, there are two ways to solve it.
> One is to wait for it to be ported and run it. The other is to
> make it a non-problem by figuring out another way to do the task
> without that application. Frequently the latter course of action
> is easier, cheaper, and better in the long run. But getting people
> to see that it's an equally valid method of solving the problem
> is a long and difficult process.
And in the end, lets you do things that MS (or your own internal
Information Services Dept., for that matter,) never thought of, or
considers too small a market to bother with.
Empower the user, and he will empower the company.
Empower purchasing, and all they will do is to buy applications which
have more and more functions no one ever needs.
But of course, you need workers with some modicum level of
sensibility to start with. If you are hiring morons... I suppose
MoronSloth is the answer. Just don't expect them to get anything done.
Most of the real improvements in business come not from minor
productivity enhancements, but from RE-THINKING the process! Employees
can do local optimization, Analysts will give you global optimization that
creates Major improvements. You need to RE-THINK processes every five to
ten years if not sooner, because technology and business conditions change.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------- IMAGINEERING --------------------------
--- Have you analyzed your viewer's footprints in the logs? ---
--- Webmaster's Resources: http://www.mall-net.com/webcons/ ---
--- Web Imagineering -- Architecture to Programming CGI-BIN ---
---------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
