| What are we doing?
September 3rd, 2001 Because one of my colleagues asked me a very legitimate question about this today, and because I'm growing rather tired of having to explain all this time and again, I've decided to put down in writing why it is that I look at new soft- and hardware the way I do. So that in future I can reference this page instead of talking my tongue off, you see. Here's the gist. In the corporate branch I operate in, that of the ICT (webbuilding, to be more precise), there are two kinds of companies: traditional and cutting edge. Cutting edge companies are, for instance, Internet providers, soft- and hardware developers, system builders and -maintainers, and large secondment agencies: all companies who directly benefit from knowing what the newest of the newest is, how it works and what its advantages and disadvantages are. Traditional companies are, for instance, supermarket chains, printers, accountants, brand registrars and shipping companies, but also the government's civil service, and publishers, such as Wegener, for which I work. My take on it all, for the past few years, has been to assist these traditional companies in ascertaining which of the technologies and possibilities available for and through the World Wide Web are stable, fast and transparent enough to be a good platform for them to bring across their product on, and to use as a means to expand on their marketing strategies towards the end user, then to use the above as efficiently as possible for those purposes. This doesn't just mean 'I'm not particularly waiting for hot new technology': it means I'm PARTICULARLY NOT waiting for it. Hot new technology, more often than not, is unstable and, far more important, technology, to a traditional enterprise, in this aspect is only interesting if and when three quarters of its customers use it. This is why I said that I would not now install Windows XP on my own workstations if they'd give me money to do so. Because that would make the risk far too great that I'd run into an error dialog tomorrow and would not be able to work. And this is also why I do not run Linux: because the machine, to me, is a means, not a target. Once Linux is packaged in an installation procedure and GUI that is just as stupidly easy to install and use as Microsoft Windows is, and supports as broad a range of software as Windows does, I will be very interested in Linux - but until such time I only want to know about it what I strictly MUST know about it in order to be able to, within our webserver environments, in which we do use Linux, tweak the file permissions just so that my files can be displayed to the outside world, and to, in emergencies, be able to work a command prompt text editor. The rest is NOT interesting, since I'm NOT a system operator and have NO ambition to become one. And so this goes for Windows XP too: I am, principally, a great advocate of the implementation of such technology (I even look forward, with joy and apprehension, to the day the Net and TV become 1 thing), but until the statistics for the websites of my employers show that more than 10% of the users viewing them within the geographical area of the target audience, i.e. the Netherlands, is using Windows XP, I am interested in hearing what its quirks are from those who do use it (in fact THAT is a large part of my responsibility) - but I wouldn't consider running it myself. The grand exception to this whole story, of course, is the Microsoft Internet Explorer, because the way it has been embedded within the system certifiably means that, every time a new version appears, the majority of the users important to my employer DOES use it before you know it. Thank you for your attention. |
Previous episodes:
Back | Forward | About me | Home | Mail |