Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (27762)	8/19/1999 1:22:00 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Respond to of 77400

OTOT..Michelle, at 1st glance ( too early in AM,<VBG>) what you said made sense. But then as I pondered it I started having doubts.Specifically with this : *Making the product fit into the infrastructure is at least partly the responsibiilty of the customer.* I don't think I can buy this. As systems get more complex, the web gets more complex, equipment and software vary so widely, I think it is suicide for any moms and pops to do any kind of fitting into the infrastructure as the WCOM debacle has demonstrated. This eqipment upgrades are becoming no longer a simple tire change. They are too complicated for most IT officers pf any company. ESPECIALLY if vendor equipment is substandard or incomplete or in need of future upgrades. BTW everything I see today is in constant need for upgrades, GG Customers are not equipment ( hardware and software )experts. After the WCOM debacle I think you will see more and more customers DEMAND from vendors, what you call , " out of the box " performance. They will say YOU build it and YOU install it and YOU make sure it works right or else....... I am not buying it. And if the system crashes in future with add ons then we just need to come up with a better scalable system. Or in the least, looks like EBay chose a poorly scalable system, My 2c TA OT OT OT Tunica, what I mean is, if you buy software (complex software not stuff from msft), there is generally a lot of customization plus implementation setup etc. Making the product fit into the infrastructure is at least partly the responsibiilty of the customer. And the customer sets the schedules a lot of the time... theres always the chance of some specific situation.. ex. in ebay's case they are running some unix variant because some other package they need in-house runs on this old software... this new stuff comes from Sun, they put it in and it blows up - whose fault is that? Anyway I don't know what happened here, I do believe that like software, LU/wcom needed an implementation team and schedule, there is usually at least a testing phase and customer signoff...

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (27762)	8/19/1999 3:00:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Anyway I don't know what happened here, I do believe that like software, LU/wcom needed an implementation team and schedule, there is usually at least a testing phase and customer signoff... If here at Honeywell we treated Boeing the way that Lucent appears to have treated MCI then we wouldn't be doing most of their commercial avionics anymore, regardless of any customer signoff or FAA certification. Lucent's attitude represents the baggage of its origin: "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company." I own both CSCO and LU.