Hi, Chuq.
I noticed you saying to All:
CVR> I find it fascinating to watch people tell other folks how easy it is
CVR> to do their job right, myself. I wonder how many people on this list
CVR> could begin to architect AOL's system, much less build one that
CVR> didn't implode in the first three minutes.
More or less off-topic, I Feel Your Pain here. <g> In my job, I
occasionally have people say, "No, Dave doesn't need any extra help.
After all, single individuals have done all of the work in that job
before -- and they didn't even have a computer!"
Which is quite true, they could do all the work alone. Heck, _I_ used
to do all the work alone, before I had the computer, and the fax
machine, and the copier with the multi-copy feeder & what-all. But
after I got alla the new technology put in there, after I got things set
up to handle more volume faster, it became impossible, -because- of all
the new tech.
The volume of production and speed of production and the new features,
like the ability to track all of the paperwork I handle, went from being
a luxury to being a necessity, just because it's there now. People
-expect- more stuff done faster, because I've -always- done more stuff
faster. If I went back to a system I could -really- handle alone,
they'd complain about that, too.
As for AOL's system, well, I think you've both got points. On the one
hand, a system the size of AOL is a whole 'nother phenomenon entirely.
It can't be done just-the-same-but-bigger, because the shear volume
makes it not just-the-same.
On the other hand, the offer for which they accepted money was "Internet
email" et-al, and the acceptance was of those services as they had been
done. And the rest of the providers on the net -didn't- overcommit
their resources as AOL did. So -their- product quality shouldn't be
reduced, just because AOL got too big and stepped on their, um,
shoelaces.
On the gripping hand, I am not aware of any mechanism to reliably and
consistently test email service to determine if AOL's service is
pound-for-pound really any worse than (or better than) anyone else's
service. It may really be no worse per capita than any other service.
But it may -appear- worse, because they're one of the few operating at a
large enough scale for the problems to be apparent.
On that issue, I note that I have never used AOL myself. I've been
using CompuServe for many years, because it was consistently reliable.
Then they got bought by AOL. Then their reliability went down the
toilet, from my perception. YMMV.
... Answers: $1, Short: $5, Correct: $25, dumb looks are still free.
--
>> Sysop, American Tune BBS | DISCLAIMER: Hey, I -own- the place!
>> Anyway, my views are sometimes not even my own, much less anyone else's.
