🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <536@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl> ge@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers) writes:
> jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes:
> >A centralized authority -- if it is responsive to the needs of its users --
Note--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >has the capability to offer better facilities and support at a lower price.

> - I've one seen a bill for use of a VAX780 for one year with 10 people.
>   It was about $500,000.- (1987). You could buy a faster Sun-3 AND hire
>   an operator for less ($1,500,000.- in three years!)

If you can do it, they can do it. And they can fix or replace your
Sun a lot faster than you can when it breaks.

You just described a central authority *not* responsible to the needs of its
users. John's statement was "A and B implies C", whereas your response was
"A and ^B implies ^C". This may be true, but it's neither interesting or
useful.

ALSO, the rest of your arguments make another assumption: that the central
authority has a small number of large machines. They can also have (as we
do at Ferranti) a large number of small machines. All the edvantages of
distributed authority *plus* an economy of scale. And the few people who
need a big machine can get one.
-- 
`-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>.
 'U`  --------------  +1 713 274 5180.
"The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame."
	-- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM