From: scott@nic.gac.edu (Scott Hess)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A CPU on Every Desk?
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:15:46
Organization: Is a sign of weakness
	<1993Jan23.163039.5996@cyantic.com> <1993Jan23.204429.29611@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.gac.edu
In-reply-to: abell@netcom.com's message of Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:44:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.204429.29611@netcom.com>
	abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell) writes:
>Oh, how short people's memories are!

Don't speak so quickly ...

>One of the biggest drawbacks of centralized service is not technical,
>but political. It is a *real* drag to have to rely upon the guys
>down the hall or over in the other building who support the CPUs
>and disk drives.

This is one of those horrid generalizations that I keep running
across and trying to shoot down.  Just because a computer is on
someone's desk doesn't mean it doesn't need support.  Someone has
to install the operating system.  Someone has to install the new
memory/disk/printer and all of the software to support it.  Someone
has to install the word processors, spreadsheets, and other programs
for the user to be able to get work done.  Someone has to install
upgrades for each of these programs.  Someone has to be around to
figure out what's gone wrong when the screen goes fuschia.  Someone
has to run cable and connect the machine to a LAN.  Someone has to
run and support that LAN.  Someone has to make certain that the
desktop PCs can use the LAN effectively.

And, guess what?  These days, _very_ few of the "someone's" above
corrospond to the person who's office the equipment is installed
in.  These days, the idea that people can in general support their
own computers is hogwash, and anyplace which has many computers,
each of them supported by their users, will soon find that multiple
fiefdoms do _not_ get more done, though they certainly spend more
time getting it done.

Look at cars.  What's the common nostalgic picture we get of teenage
males from the late 40s through the early 60s?  Yes, they're all
out in the garage fixing up their cars.  Does this happen today?
Yes and no.  I have friends who've picked up late model heaps from
the early 70s and before and fixed them up, but hardly anyone fixes
newer cars, what with their electronic fuel injection and other
stuff that is impossible to understand.  About the best people can
do is change their own oil, and most don't even bother to do that.
Do you see people writing letters to the editor about how we should
all go back to inefficient cars that you could fix yourself?  Didn't
think so.

>Distributed systems are certainly inefficient in some ways (so is
>a market economy), but flexibility is a tremendous advantage that
>outweighs these inefficiencies.

Which flexibility can only be harnessed if there is a centralized
group that understands how the pieces fit together.

>Central systems are the ever-so-efficient Soviet Union.
>Distributed systems are inefficient America.
>Take your pick.

Yes, and you can only have one.

NOT!

There are some things that centralized systems do very well.  There
are other things that distributed systems do well.  Thinking that
you can live on just one side of the equation means that you'd
better be prepared to put a lot of work into emulating the other
side ...

[Your analogy does work, though.  In the Soviet Union people fall
through the cracks because the central systems are too big to notice
them.  In the United States people fall through the cracks because
the distributed systems have no incentive to catch them.  In either
case, people fall through the cracks.  When applied to computer
systems, "falling through the cracks" means that you didn't get
your job done in a timely manner.]

Later,
--
scott hess <shess@ssesco.com>                        <To the BatCube, Robin>
12901 Upton Avenue South, #326  Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 895-1208 Anytime!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy