GPG

[zscoundrel]

You have my sympathy, but DAMN, I am SO glad I left 'em when I had the 
chance!!!

Sheesh, when I left, they were running OS/2 on most of the PC's.  I 
guess all the layoffs DID take a toll on the brain trust after all!

No wonder the Sprint stock prince is buried so deep in the dumper ya 
gotta drill ventilation shafts and pump in air!  Bill Esrey and Bill 
Gates should be proud.  From $62 to $6 is less than 18 months!

Even though they have had 6? 7? 8? rounds of layoffs this year, I bet 
their 'doze site license agreements haven't been re-negotaited, have 
they?  Instead of the 40k seats they were originally paying for, they 
could save MILLIONS of DOLLARS by telling M$ to shove it and getting 
real software.

I am sorry if this seams like an off topic rant by a bitter, 
disillusioned shareholder - IT IS - but there is a lesson to be learned 
here!!!  People don't realize the scope of the damage that occurs EVERY 
DAY because of bad I/T decisions.

Imagine, if you will, that instead of a cow-town long distance company 
with a limited number of PC's and an ever shrinking number of employees, 
  a major multinational conglomerate with a gross income larger than 
many third world countries and more employees than several western 
states.  Image a company like Citibank with 3 or 4 hundred thousand 
employees under contract to pay hundreds of dollars per person for the 
'privilege' of using lousy computer software, and additionally, tens of 
thousands of dollars PER PERSON in HIDDEN costs because of that lousy 
software.

You are now entering the Microsoft zone!  A place where a company pays 
as much to license, install and support the PC as it pay the person that 
uses it.

Jesus!  Is it any wonder that that the economy is in the gutter?

(PS: My spell checker thinks that an acceptable spelling
      of Esrey is Usury.  Perhaps it is right!!)

Duston, Hal wrote:

> Jason Clinton wrote:
> 
>>Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
>>
>>>Jason Clinton wrote:   
>>>
>>>>Ok, this is the fourth person to ask so here's the explination once 
>>>>and for all:
>>>>
>>>So you've had four people note that if you have anything interesting 
>>>to say, we can't see it because of your arrogant attitude toward the 
>>>most common mail software on the net, and your reply is pretty much 
>>>that you don't give a hoot.
>>>
>>Furthermore, it's not that it cannot be seen. It's merely that it's made 
>>to be incovient (double click the attachment) for the average user which 
>>is so typical of MS tatics. They can claim interoperability while still 
>>pushing people away from competitors. Take the Java VM lawsuit for
>>
> instance.
> 
>>If it were any other email client I would switch to inline signing. But, 
>>I don't have the least bit of simpathy of a single MS email client user.
>>
> 
> Well, here are my current needs for an email client.  It has to run 
> on Windows 95, (that's the current standard install here at Sprint PCS).
> It has to connect to MS Exchange servers, and provide all the calendar,
> meeting-maker type stuff.  I don't know of any other email client 
> besides MS Outlook that provides those features.  Yes, I know I should
> refuse to work at a place that has those requirements, but then they
> would refuse to provide me with cash and I would probably get hungry
> after a few days.
> 
> Hal
> 
> 
> 
>