Xref: utzoo comp.misc:6508 comp.os.misc:968 comp.arch:10545
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!ked
From: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.os.misc,comp.arch
Subject: Re: TRON (message from the project leader)
Keywords: TRON, standards, operating systems, distributed systems
Message-ID: <26118@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 8 Jul 89 02:54:29 GMT
References: <389@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> <6340@pdn.paradyne.com> <2296@trantor.harris-atd.com> <114351@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 13

In article <114351@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> khb@sun.UUCP (gammara) writes:
>In article <2296@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes:
>>Sony Betamax videotape systems, or even...
>>they were all replaced by later, better technology.  Being first is not always
>>a guarantee of success.

The original posting that sparked this diversion gave several other
examples. One was Edison pushing DC over AC (the "obviously" superior
approach). Perhaps some of the EEs can correct me, but I was under the
impression that DC was making a comeback for power transmission due to
semiconductor technology. Perhaps in retrospect Edison was less
pigheaded than visionary?  He was "wrong" given the short run technical
progress curve but not for the long?