Congratulations!
My last job reminds of the contrast between Borroughs and IBM mainframes in the
60's.
IBM used 2 teams of a hundred assembler programmers writing odd/even versions of
the mainframe DOS. (I remember the even numbered versions were terrible)
Borroughs had 12 programmers who wrote the complete operating system in Algol --
there was no assembler for the Borroughs, it was designed to run Algol. The
timesharing OS, Fortran and Cobol compilers, etc. were all written in Algol.
Neat machine.
The Borroughs mainframes ran rings around anything IBM could release until the
43xx series in the early 80s. They finally had enough horsepower to push their
clunky systems software up to the speed that Borroughs achieved in the mid-50s.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Russell" <srussell at lotmate .D.O.T com>
To: <profoxtech@leafe.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: Visual Record Lock?
> Chet. Only 300? Hahaha
>
> You may remember me talking about the Java system at St. Jude. Last Fri
> it made the Biz section of our paper. No Web deliver of it :(
>
> Anyway 20 people in total, 12 at a time created this Java wonder that
> took First Place in a National Medical Software Competition. It beat
> out allot of pharmaceutical stuff. And it raised allot of eyebrows in
> Medical Research communities.
>
> Time frame was 2.5 years. It had a few major changes along the way and
> because of the Architect it's great. Fully data driven, and a new
> researcher can get a custom interface for their study in about 2->10
> hours of time. It use to take me 2 days to 2 weeks in my FPD system to
> make the necessary changes to the existing forms I had to fit what they
> needed new in their current study.
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Russell
> S.R. & Associates
> Memphis TN 38115
> 901.246-0159
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if whenever we messed up our life we could simply
> press Ctrl Alt Delete' and start all over?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profox-bounces at leafe .D.O.T com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On
> Behalf Of Chet Gardiner
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:41 PM
> To: profox at leafe .D.O.T com
> Subject: Re: Visual Record Lock?
>
>
> Small for me is 100 or less in one location. Most of my work over the
> years has been for this kind of operation.
>
> Medium is 101-500 -- and/or "smallish" with multiple locations.
>
> Large is about 500-10000 -- I've been lucky enough to avoid these
> obscenities except for my first and last job*.
>
> Metastized - over 10,000 - Impossible to innovate in one of these.
>
> Just my opinions.
>
> Chet
>
>
> * At that job they had about 300 programmers--mostly "C", Java, VB, SQL
> Server and they still couldn't re-write the FoxDos system that worked
> fine that 12 of us supported. What a zoo! What a hotbed of politics
> and wasted time and energy!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Russell" <srussell@lotmate.com>
> To: <profoxtech at leafe .D.O.T com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:16 PM
> Subject: RE: Visual Record Lock?
>
>
> > Chet, how do you classify Small, Medium and Large sized businesses?
> >
> > Small to me is anything under 150 users <multiple locations included>.
>
> > Medium is 150 to 1500 users. Large is 1500+.
> >
> > Most of my work is with SMALL, and some Medium. Currently I have done
>
> > no work for the 1500+ user company.
> >
> >
> >
> > Stephen Russell
> > S.R. & Associates
> > Memphis TN 38115
> > 901.246-0159
> >
> > Wouldn't it be nice if whenever we messed up our life we could simply
> > press Ctrl Alt Delete' and start all over?
> >
> >
> >
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Chet Gardiner |
