🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Nov27.144016.23181@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes:
 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.
 Just consider some of the relevant issues:
 	Resource duplication: ...
 	Maximum single-point usage: ...
 	Security: ...
 	Expertise: ...
 	Emergencies: ...
 	Backups: ...
 	Complexity: ...
 	Downtime: ...
 	Maintenance: ...
 	Compatibility: ...

Yeah, but politics wins, just like Barry says.  Recently in Dig. Review, there
was a big fluff-article about client-server computing.  No technical info to
speak of, but expert after expert brought up this issue of the intense
desire of users to be out from under the centralized org.  To quote almost
verbatim: "Joe User will no longer tolerate interference from a bunch of
people whose job it is to keep things from getting done".

You might argue that one reason that MIS groups get such a bad rap is that
they have historically been purveyors of bad technology, i.e. IBM.  But I
think the big reason is that they suffer from the same timesharing problems
that the big machines do.  There are never enough of them to go around, so
the users end up waiting and pissed off.  Simply put, there are very few
groups in the world that have the organizational and technical skills to
keep a variety of complex OSes and network facilities running, while
simultaneously dealing politely with the ignorant, all while seriously
overworked.  It can be done, but it's hard.