Re: (no subject)

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:17:44 +0200, Maarten said:

> The only thing Todd (and I) are trying to say is that it is possible to rename 
> after the fact.  I don't #!%$&* care how many old Cobol programs need 
> adapting for that to "get" possible, but the fact remains that it IS.

The question is *in fact* what ROI the companies get for modifying all that
old Cobol.  "Possible" and "worth doing" are two different things...
  
> Don't start again about how your current procedures may prevent or complicate 
> that.  Worse integration problems, by far more complex and bigger companies 
> or conglomerates are being tackled every day.  Yeah. To name a few ?

Note that here the ROI is pretty easy - you fix the compatibility or the company
goes under.

> How about mergers, or international intelligence-exchange between law 
> enforcement agencies.  Do you think that they let anyone stop them by 
> complaining that database format X isn't readily compatible with format Y ?  
> No. They fix it, they make it work together no matter what.

Actually, that isn't always the case.  

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=332&sid=100

Yes, a database so borked that copying it could break it.

> So don't start about how impossible it is for you to rename one simple entry.

It's not a question of being *impossible*.  But if it costs them US$750K to do it,
and the expected return is under US$750K, why should they do it?

Hell, we're talking about an industry which as a whole *continues* to keep
spewing out 'We removed a virus/worm' warnings to known not-at-fault addresses
- presumably the (probably very low) cost of ceasing to do so is
counterbalanced by the advertising benefit of the spam. If they won't do *THAT*
little thing that's *obviously* in the public interest, why should they change
the way they name stuff, at probably higher cost, and less obvious benefit?

Attachment: _bin
Description: