[Am-info] Technology for teamwork

[Erick Andrews]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:47:37 -0500, Roy Bixler wrote:

>On Monday 17 June 2002 07:06, Erick Andrews wrote:
>> MS is pushing its way into collaborative software used by the military.
>>
>> See...
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/168/business/Technology_for_teamwork+.sht
>>ml
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> ''Microsoft's [collaboration] products may be immature now, but they're
>> getting better,'' says Mike Kennedy, the director of internal information
>> systems at BAE Systems. ''We are using SiteScape today, but I don't believe
>> over the long haul that SiteScape will be our solution. BAE has a stated
>> position that ultimately [Microsoft] will be its collaborative
>> environment.''
>>
>> It's unfortunate, Kennedy says, but we live in a world where no one ever
>> gets fired for buying Microsoft - just as they used to say about IBM.
>>
>> [...]
>
>Wow!  And he doesn't even attempt to give any reasoning for his idea to 
>blindly switch software.  How else besides simple syncophancy can one explain 
>the mindset of someone who's willing to make such a long term commitment to 
>software neither he or anyone else has seen, just on a promise of "good 
>intentions?"
>
>By the way, this sounds exactly like the following from the "Warped 
>Perspective" article pointed out by John Urbaniak.
>
><quote>
>Every evidence of decadence in the modern world -- from priestly pedophiles 
>to software megalomaniacs to political monkeyshine -- is the result of an 
>attitude of smug, self-assured complacency. Decades of relative peace and a 
>period of ever-increasing wealth have produced a generation of leaders who 
>want to rig the game, to ensure that the outcome is fixed and that success is 
>pre-determined. Stock-market and accounting swindlers are obvious adherents 
>to this mindset of writing the rules so that the appearance of success is 
>maintained at all costs. Technology companies -- at least the large, 
>capital-driven ones -- are not immune to this trend, and in fact are among 
>its primary examples.
></quote>

Your reply is appreciated.

Tom Nadeau's monthly installments have, to me at least, been getting
more considered since his book that he privately published a few years
ago.  He puts a new page on his "os2hq" website every month.  I mostly 
agree with him, or find him provocatively thoughtful.

If you get between the lines, a lot suggests that Microsoft has
done more harm in the consumer/business/society world than just
what I'd term as the deprivation of high-tech advancement...a 10 
year setback IMNSHO for what it should have been.  Yeah, I know, 
history doesn't reveal its alternatives, but I still believe in common 
sense.

In other words, what has MS done beyond lining theirs and many
IT pockets for the recurring short term?  At what price?  

It is easier to 'bite the hand' that's NOT feeding you, and Mr Kennedy,
sychophant or otherwise not, only exemplifies a more fundamental 
problem than MS's monopolization of computing choice.  We can
sort of quantify all the wonderful bucks that have gone to Redmond
and so many more of those that were sunk into this gravy-train 
thinking, but even after 10 or so years it is tarnishing everyone.

My parting question:  Are their *intentions* honorable?

-- 
Erick Andrews