Subject: Re: Slightly Off-Topic...
To: Paul A Vixie <email@example.com>
From: Brian Hechinger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/26/2001 00:17:54
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:51:45PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > ... the best technology is NEVER the cheapest technology. ...
> i completely disagree. any engineer who makes something that's more expensive
> than it needs to be to get the job done is a bad engineer. any consumer who
> pays for more expensive technology than they need for the job at hand is an
you buy what you need, and you get what you pay for. the best technology is
going to cost more up front. i'm sorry, but to research something right takes
money, to design something right takes money, and to fabricate something right
takes money. that all adds up. i'm not saying more expensive than it needs to
be, but doing it quick/cheap and doing it right are two completely different
> however, the total cost of ownership is higher than just the price tag, and
> bad technology that's cheap to buy into almost always costs more in the long
> run. the thing wintel is good at is making these costs so indirect that they
> appear negligible. they're not. the total cost of ownership of a vax -- any
> vax -- was always lower than its competition -- even sun. even when paying
> DEC's rather high support contract fees. the vax was a masterpiece of
> engineering. precisely because it took cost -- total cost of ownership --
> into account.
i didn't say that since i just sorta figured we are all of the same boat here
and we all think what you said here. it's a way of life, and a continual
battle with the beancounters. they JUST DON'T GET IT!! it's frustrating.
there is still going to be upfront costs that will more likely than not cost
more than the inferior choice, but in the long run, it all balances out and
the superior technology is the cheaper solution. but i forget who said about
the alpha thing that they aren't looking 10 years down the road, they are only
looking as far as next quarter, and what are our profits going to look like.
it's the short-sightedness of the people who are in charge of the money that
is the true problem.
anyway, i'm not sure i'm saying much of anything that any of us doesn't already