| From: | Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: "Free" Software (was: Euro question) |
| Date: | Fri, 1 May 1998 14:32:33 -0500 |
> I don't see this ever happening precisely like this. That many folks
> working together. Nope. It would be whoever can get the best product
> out first, to make the most cash, before somebody else does.
There are committees working together now. EIA/TIA, ANSI, DVD
Consortium, etc. And that is just to set standards for operatability.
The Crash brought the technological, but more importantly, the
economic world to a halt. Such a catastrophic event would certainly
be a reason to open up the lines of communication. A jointly
developed OS would be the quickest and safest way to get back up and
running. Quick because so many varied resources could be poured into
it. Safe, because everyone shares the same code base (no backdoors,
because the others would catch it, or if there are, everyone knows
about them).
I don't think a company would go it alone. Too risky. A company may
certainly have developed and used their own OS, but who else would
adopt it? Nobody knew who created the virus. Fear and uncertainty
would keep corps from putting an outside product on their systems.
Security concerns would be high. No IT manager is going to put his
system back onto a global network, unless he can be damn sure who he
is connecting too, and what they are using. The development
partnership would solve that problem. The IT manager would know the
OS, and the players involved. Hell, some of them were his people.
The questions has to be asked; why would a corporation spend
resources to develop a none revenue generating product? It flies in
the face of capitalism. The answer is simple: without the global
reach they once had, most corps are in serious trouble. Their
sources of income have become severely limited. Do they spend
resources on a venture that guarantees they can get their computers
up and connected to the world again, or do they take a risk and try
and develop there own system, and hope it is adopted and accepted by
their customers and partners? No brainer. Most CEO's are going to
take the sure thing every time.
> I'm
> still convinced FASA used the Crash, simply to regulate the level of
> technology, and to make it so people like us, wouldn't argue (much)
> about the "matrix" its protocols, OS, etc. :) --
Your probably right, but you can still speculate a reasonable
explanation.
--
