🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1989Nov29.031045.14612@cs.rochester.edu>, I went and said:
| My point is this:  your experience shows that, of the two degrees
| of centralization that you have tried, the one you call
| `centralized' worked for you better than the other.  From there to
| conclude with DiMarco et al. that this experience is so generally
| valid that workstations are just a fad, or that centralization
| wins always, there is a tremendous leap of faith.

Upon rereading the thread more carefully (it got contaminated in my
brain with the 'fad computing' one) I realized that DiMarco never
claimed quite any of the above, so I apologize for putting words in
his fingertips.  

To summarize:  If I understand him correctly, he believes in the
general superiority of centralization, given some conditions of
enlightened authority.  I believe the necessary conditions to be
quite infrequent, so I don't see any a priori advantage of
centralization, and my experience tends to support the claim that
centralizing *authority* (as opposed to service) tends to harm as
often as it helps.

-- 
                                      Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez
                                      Department of Computer Science
                                      University of Rochester
                                      Rochester,  NY 14627