User avatar
By eriknben10
#493416
That's obvious but do you think they are actually saving companies millions or not? It is my understanding that the technology has been moving so rapidly that you could train a workforce and they would be moot within a relatively short period of time. In the end, it is all about the cost.
In my business it is sometimes cheaper to raze a building and start anew than it is to cobble together old pieces and bring them up to date.
User avatar
By Stinky Pete
#493417
eriknben10 wrote:In my business it is sometimes cheaper to raze a building and start anew than it is to cobble together old pieces and bring them up to date.


What if they're already up to date, and have been functioning just fine all along?
User avatar
By eriknben10
#493418
That is the million dollar question. Are they up to date with the latest technology and regulations. In a building you need consider the age of roof,wiring,heating,cooling, and many other things that bring them up to date. Just because you have 4 walls and a roof appearing fine means nothing. All materials and mechanical functions have a shelf life and today that life seems to have been shortened. Many structures are not compliant with today's codes. If the expected life of a structure is 100 years and 50 have passed would it be more cost effective to bring it up to code for the remainder of the 50 years or replace it with new that will last 100 years? Pay now or pay later at a much higher cost. Form and function also play a part. Last but not least are aesthetics. Who wants a new addition that doesn't match the existing?
A lot of questions need be answered before making a decision is why I asked you the question, is IBM actually saving companies millions from switching from Oracle to db2 or not?
User avatar
By eriknben10
#493420
But if they keep up for another 5-10 years and save a million, is it worth the investment or would investing in new technology now that will be defunct in 10 yeas be a better path? The cost of retraining a workforce can't be cheap for any company and the rapid rate of change must scare the chit out of them.
In either event learning on the job never ends if you want to keep up.
User avatar
By Phaedrus
#493958
Bannon hanging with his crowd...

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Saturday told a crowd of far-right French politicians to let people label them as "racist," and to consider it "a badge of honor."

Bannon, a senior advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump, attended the party congress of France's far-right National Front in the French city of Lille, where he also met with the political party's leader, Marine Le Pen.

Clad in his usual field coat and khakis, Bannon stood on stage to address the seated crowd of party elites, who were dressed in suits.

"Let them call you racist. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists," he said. “Wear it as a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker.”

Bannon's visit to France was his latest stop on a tour of European countries, which has included Switzerland and Italy.
User avatar
By Stinky Pete
#493960
"Let them call you racist. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists," he said. “Wear it as a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker.”

This is nothing new. Those people take pride in those traits. You see it all the time, even on this site.
User avatar
By breitak67
#493970
eriknben10 wrote:That is the million dollar question. Are they up to date with the latest technology and regulations. In a building you need consider the age of roof,wiring,heating,cooling, and many other things that bring them up to date. Just because you have 4 walls and a roof appearing fine means nothing. All materials and mechanical functions have a shelf life and today that life seems to have been shortened. Many structures are not compliant with today's codes. If the expected life of a structure is 100 years and 50 have passed would it be more cost effective to bring it up to code for the remainder of the 50 years or replace it with new that will last 100 years? Pay now or pay later at a much higher cost. Form and function also play a part. Last but not least are aesthetics. Who wants a new addition that doesn't match the existing?
A lot of questions need be answered before making a decision is why I asked you the question, is IBM actually saving companies millions from switching from Oracle to db2 or not?


It is illusory savings. It's like telling someone you can build their brick house cheaper if you use Adobe blocks that are half the price of regular bricks, but you don't tell them that Adobe blocks will disintegrate after a few rain storms. There is an apparent short-term savings that is swamped by their need to be replaced in a few months. The IT world is full of examples of seriously contra-indicated decisions hawked by predatory consulting firms - firms that specialize in obsolete technologies have a vested interest in keeping their tech alive at the expense of their customers' best interests.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 23