Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:9275 alt.religion.computers:2391
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!cy5
From: cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Mac clones (was Re: AT&T Claims patent on part of MIT's X11)
Message-ID: <1991Mar8.170100.14335@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 91 17:01:00 GMT
References: <VeDay5w163w@mantis.co.uk> <1991Mar5.154844.17339@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <BZS.91Mar7183832@world.std.com>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Reply-To: cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu

In article <BZS.91Mar7183832@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>>Yes, I can think of one reason.  No corporate buyer ever lost his job
>>because he decided to buy IBM.
>
>Perhaps you don't understand that phrase. "No one ever got fired for
>buying IBM" is an IBM salesman's sotto voce threat to a middle-manager
>wandering from the fold. It means "I can get you fired for not buying
>our products", and they often can.

Perhaps you are right.  I meant that IBM is a conservative choice that
the suits like to see.  Thus, if there is a failure, it does not 
reflect poorly on the purchaser (After all, it is IBM).  If a cheaper
and more powerful alternative fails, this does tend to get back to
the purchaser since the guy should have bought "quality".

					Conway Yee, N2JWQ
yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)             231 S. Melville St.
cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)    Philadelphia, Pa 19139
yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov    (rarely checked)        (215) 386-1312