[log in to unmask], in response to Al Ankers' NT laments, wrote:
>

> The ultimate solution: Get rid of Netware on your HP 3000.  I have an HP 3000.............

(snip)

and, in response to Al's hesitancy in implementing Microsofts newest
products wrote:

> Is this decision for job security reasons?

Pardon my soapbox, and with apologies to Denys for launching off his
comments.

I'm not an advocate of fighting windmills, or for trying to hold back
the tide. Yet I will remain resistant to the concept that improvement
can only be achieved by abandonment of our past investments. Why must
one always "get rid" of workable products to adopt the next latest and
greatest. Certainly, there are advancements in technology that warrant
change, but one of the appreciated aspects to the HP3000 environment has
been HP's effort toward "investment protection".

The advice to be rid of a working solution (Novell) in favor of a
competitor's offering only in order to fix problems caused by that
competitor seems somehow convoluted.  In this case, maybe the onus is
Microsoft's, as it is its “competitive” offering which is being
disruptive, and therefore criticized.

Is not our industry advocating “open systems” based upon
interoperability?  Doesn’t “open” imply flexibility of choice?  Perhaps
we should help our industry embrace the concepts by refusing to accept,
let alone to advocate, the tyranny of this or any other supplier whose
blatant intent is dominate and intimidate us. To accept such a
domination will only set us back.

Had we had blindly accepted only what big brother offered, we would
still be burdened with the limited functionality of LanManager, and
Microsoft would have had no reason to advance new solutions. Honest
competition in the marketplace between rivals is healthy and leads to
true innovation. Perhaps if Al saw clear and compelling benefits, he
would pursue the change rather than sharing with us his laments.

We should all keep in mind that Microsoft is not the only kid on the
block, only today’s biggest.