On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 11:40:14PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote: > on it then on Windows. But it didn't pay as IBM didn't get support > calls. So, they let it die, without telling anyone obviously. It > was secure and stable for it's time anyway. Ever tried to by > direct from IBM > ... > secure or stable, customers don't upgrade, or call for support and > give you $$$.
A somewhat related anecdote: On summer, while still a college student, I worked for a carpet cleaning service. Apparently one carpet manufacturer (Sears I think) made carpeting out of *nylon* (I think it was called "401"). The stuff lasted forever, and was easy to clean. I actually cleaned a house with that carpeting---30 years old, and after cleaning, looked almost brand new. (Of course, it was 30-year-old styling, so, no matter how clean, it was still a hideous flourescent yellow.) But, as the "carpet cleaners' lore" goes, they stopped producing it because it was "too" good. No need to buy carpet for many years if you buy the good stuff. At least in some markets, quality products are bad for business: you can't sell service contracts, and can't sell a replacement in the short-term. (This is certainly the Windows business model, right?) Unfortunately, looking at it from the vendors' side, I can at least see their point: what is the business case in creating and maintaining good documentation? They basically need *financial* motivation for taking an engineer off a project to write the documentation (or hire a technical writer, but either way, it's "intellectual capital" that they perceive as not making money). I'm sure a business case could be made, but I'm sure these big vendors have pretty conservative cultures that discourages out-of-box thinking. Heck, with laws like the US DMCA, you could *almost* look at hardware documentation as illegal, because you might use that documentation to use the device in a manner for which it wasn't intended, or circumvent DRM. Evil! -Matt
