Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> SOA and OSS to replace it?
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | You can't toss a computer scientist without hitting someone saying
> | that software is dead.
Rumors of it's death are highly exaggerated.
> Venture capitalists think it
> | (some are even moving on to energy and elsewhere),
We have a former Texas Oil man, the son of an Oil man, who has partners
including the Bin Ladin Oil dynasty (not Osama). Of course you would
look into investing into the companies of friends of the president.
If, in 2001, you had invested in Haliburton, Exxon, or some of HP
instead of HPC and MSFT, you would be making out like a bandit. If you
had invested in United Technologies instead of Dell, you'd be very
Elections are tricky business. Al Gore and Bill Clinton were big fans
of technology. They encouraged the development of Internet, PC, and
Open Source technologies. They encouraged the proliferation of cell
phones and prevented monopolies.
The Bush organization tends to favor big pharma, energy exploration and
development, DOD/DHS/NSA funded research, and limited use of the
Military to showcase these technologies. The Bush administration has
made technologies such as GPS, security systems, and surveillance
But Bush has also tried to "clean up" some of the shady operators too.
Enron was a problem for the drillers and refiners, so Bush took care of
Companies that cooperated with the Intelligence agencies, like Verizon,
AT&T, and SBC, did really well, and there was no interference with
their mergers. Companies that didn't play along, like WorldCom and
Qwest, floundered and almost went bankrupt.
Microsoft got a pretty sweet deal, considering that they were facing
court ordered divestature, strict restrictions on anticompetitive
behaviors, contracts, and business practices, and facing numerous
lawsuits. Could it be that Microsoft "cooperated" with the friends of
Mr Bush? No one could say, because the penalty for revealing this
information would be a minimum of 10 years in prison.
You have a president whose father was head of the CIA, a vice president
who was also CIA, and he was backed by a Republican house and a split
Senate that went Republican in the Mid-Terms. It shouldn't be a big
surprise that a few companies that thrived during the Clinton tech-boom
might not do so well during a Republican sweep.
Both Clinton and Bush supported technology, but Clinton wanted to
empower individuals to create their own opportunities. Bush wanted to
provide for security of the entier country, using the protective
services of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, and the newly formed DHS.
These are two very different types of conversations. One is based on
technology for sale to the highest bidder (including Bin Ladin), the
other is based on closely monitored technology with special "features"
> | the market thinks it (multiples are at historical lows),
A major part of the market collapsed because the .com buble burst.
Companies were selling each other software to raise the revenues, but
there was very little real profit being made. The companies that were
making real profit thrived, the companies that were playing the shell
Most of the real winners, ironically, were based on Open Source
technology and were able to quickly adapt to different financial
dynamics. They didn't get caught in the credit crunch that happens
when you borrow against your stock and the price collapses.
> | and would-be software engineers think it (applications
> | to CompSci programs remain in the basement).
Ironically, one of the bigger factors in this collapse may have been
Microsoft. Microsoft has driven out most of it's competitiors, and
those that it has not driven out are protected by the courts. Intuit
is protected by the courts, as is Java. Others such as Borland,
Oracle, and Sybase have been hacked away.
Ironically, the most successful competitiors - in terms of the increase
of revenue while competing against Microsoft, have been the Linux
> Notice the complementary comments.