Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!quiroz
From: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: X-terms v. PCs v. Workstations
Message-ID: <1989Nov27.213238.24130@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: 27 Nov 89 21:32:38 GMT
References: <1128@m3.mfci.UUCP> <1989Nov22.175128.24910@ico.isc.com> <3893@scolex.sco.COM> <39361@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <17305@netnews.upenn.edu> <1989Nov25.000120.18261@world.std.com> <1989Nov27.144016.23181@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz)
Organization: University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science
Lines: 49

In <1989Nov27.144016.23181@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) wrote:
| 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.

Your choice of name (centralized AUTHORITY) actually says a lot.
Centralized resources are naturally seen as loci of power, not as
sources of service.  If you can fix the human tendency to build
empires, you can make centralized resources more palatable to those
who could otherwise prefer to not to be bothered with asking you for
permissions.  

Other than that, here go some alternative views on one of the
supporting arguments.

| 	Maximum single-point usage: If each group must purchase its own 
| 				    computing equipment, at no point in time
| 	can any group utilize more computing resources than that group owns.
| 	But in a centralized environment, the maximum amount of computing
| 	resources available to any one group increases to the total computing
| 	resources available to the centralized authority...

Maybe true of highways, not true of computers.  It is not at all
clear that just because you need extra cycles and they are free
after sunset you will be graciously granted those.  You may have to
beg to be permitted in the building after dark, etc...

| 	Imagine if your group could use the idle cycles of the group
| 	down the hall.  Wouldn't that be nice?

Sure.  Just cut the middleman and talk to the people down the hall.
You wouldn't suggest imposing on them, right?  And they may want to
have a chance at sharing your coffeemaker, or have a quick run on
your laserprinter.  Why do you need to introduce a third,
unproductive, party in this nice scenario?

Some of your scenarios oppose a benevolent tyranny that controls all
the expertise against a decadent anarchy where no one has enough
smarts to tie his own shoes.  There are intermediate steps in
between, you know.  Like places where the staff responds to the
users, instead of the other way around.  Also, distributed
responsibility for your own resources does not preclude a
cooperative condition, open to sharing when so needed.


-- 
                                      Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez
                                      Department of Computer Science
                                      University of Rochester
                                      Rochester,  NY 14627


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com