Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: X-terms v. PCs v. Workstations Message-ID: <7145@ficc.uu.net> Date: 29 Nov 89 19:11:24 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> <536@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 28 In article <536@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl> ge@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers) writes: > jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes: > >A centralized authority -- if it is responsive to the needs of its users -- Note--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >has the capability to offer better facilities and support at a lower price. > - I've one seen a bill for use of a VAX780 for one year with 10 people. > It was about $500,000.- (1987). You could buy a faster Sun-3 AND hire > an operator for less ($1,500,000.- in three years!) If you can do it, they can do it. And they can fix or replace your Sun a lot faster than you can when it breaks. You just described a central authority *not* responsible to the needs of its users. John's statement was "A and B implies C", whereas your response was "A and ^B implies ^C". This may be true, but it's neither interesting or useful. ALSO, the rest of your arguments make another assumption: that the central authority has a small number of large machines. They can also have (as we do at Ferranti) a large number of small machines. All the edvantages of distributed authority *plus* an economy of scale. And the few people who need a big machine can get one. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com