| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Robin Harbron wrote:
> A small box arrived in the mail at work today from IBM. Inside was a small
> package of Mega-Bloks, and just about no explanation as to why they were
> included, apart from the statement "IBM has what you need to build a Resilient
> Infrastructure".
>
> I find this funny on a couple fronts: In the early days of PCs, IBM computers
> were considered the "real thing" while all others were clones. Why would IBM
> choose a clone brick? I hardly think of Mega-Bloks as more "resilient" than
> Lego :)
>
> Also, IBM very recently won a huge contract to provide TLC with computer
> services - this is a bit of a back-stab, isn't it? :)
IMO, I find bricks (regardless of brand) to be a poor choice for portraying
"resilient." Brick models frequently are fragile and some shatter to pieces
when dropped. They can be frustrating to rebuild. Hardly "resilient" in my
book. Would you want an infrastructure that crumbles under pressure?
The bricks themselves may be resilient (I'm finally taking back some of my
childhood bricks, and only found them to be dusty). But that may not mean the
structure is. And vice versa: glass fibers are rather poor at resisting
fracture, and epoxy is soft, but the combination makes for a lightweight
structural composite that is resistant to fracture (more so than the fiber or
epoxy by themselves).
Now if they said "adaptable" or "infinitely configurable," bricks are an
excellent portrayal of these ideas. Just not "resilient."
John
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | IBM chooses Mega-Blocks over Lego
|
| A small box arrived in the mail at work today from IBM. Inside was a small package of Mega-Bloks, and just about no explanation as to why they were included, apart from the statement "IBM has what you need to build a Resilient Infrastructure". I (...) (23 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
