🚀 go-pugleaf

jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) wrote:
> A centralized authority -- if it is responsive to the needs of its users --
> has the capability to offer better facilities and support at a lower price.

quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz) writes:
>Centralized resources are naturally seen as loci of power, not as
>sources of service.  If you can fix the human tendency to build
>empires, you can make centralized resources more palatable to those
>who could otherwise prefer to not to be bothered with asking you for
>permissions.  

This gets to the crux of the matter. It is a preference as opposed to a 
technical reason. In that case, the discussions about Killer Micro vs central
resources should move to a soc group or some economic management group. In 
any case, I submit that there are very responsive "Computing Centers". You
may or may not have had the pleasure of working with one, but that does not
address the question of whether they are actually better.

jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) wrote:
>Power isn't necessarily a bad thing. If those with power (i.e. control over
>the computing resources) use this power to serve the users' needs, then 
>everybody is happy. If a centralized computing authority does not serve
>the users' needs, then it is not fulfilling its intended role. Unless the
>members of this authority use their 'power' for the good of their users, THEY
>ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS. Judging from some of these postings, there seems
>to be quite a few centralized computing authorities who are not doing their
>jobs.

There is also the problem of many different users. Even in a small 
organization, there are many users of different sophistication working on
many different problems. Each will perceive the exact same service as good,
bad, or indifferent.

I suspect that people who want Killer Micros are the same people who want
Unix on their "own" box. They want to control the whole system and have the
knowledge (and inclination) to do so.

There are many other users who don't want to know. They don't even want to
know how many MIPS they are burning. They just want to know that the correct
"solution" comes up if they hit the right keys. I suspect this group do
not want Unix and couldn't care less about how the MIPS is packaged. 


jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) wrote:
> 	Maximum single-point usage: If each group must purchase its own 
> 				    computing equipment, at no point in time
> 	can any group utilize more computing resources than that group owns.
> 	But in a centralized environment, the maximum amount of computing
> 	resources available to any one group increases to the total computing
> 	resources available to the centralized authority...
>
> 	Imagine if your group could use the idle cycles of the group
> 	down the hall.  Wouldn't that be nice?

quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz) writes:
>Maybe true of highways, not true of computers.  It is not at all
>clear that just because you need extra cycles and they are free
>after sunset you will be graciously granted those.  You may have to
>beg to be permitted in the building after dark, etc...
>
>Sure.  Just cut the middleman and talk to the people down the hall.
>You wouldn't suggest imposing on them, right?  And they may want to
>have a chance at sharing your coffeemaker, or have a quick run on
>your laserprinter.  Why do you need to introduce a third,
>unproductive, party in this nice scenario?

Again, there are many different situations. 

If you know the people across the hall, and know their schedule and computing
requirements; certainly you can do some horse-trading.

What if there are 5,000 people working in the company working on a couple of
hundred of project that you have never heard of? How do you handle the 
bi-lateral trades? I would much rather have a group do all the trading 
for me. Sure, I lose some control, but I would not have spent time to
control it anyway!

Also, how do you go about justifying a new machine if you only need half
a machine and the guy across the hall also needs only half a machine? Who
gets to fight the budget battles to buy it? Who will control it? If you 
coordinate purchase and share control, you just end up with a bunch of
small "centers".

Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
(613) 763-2831		     ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!schow%bcarh61
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.