Data communications over telegraph circuits 1921

Then you don't understand the difference between understanding computers and understanding using them for a particular use.

Applications are not OSes and OSes are not applications. When you mix the two, you get Micropoo.

See above.

Again, knowing how to use computers for one purpose and knowing how to ship a general computing utuility to customers is NOT the same thing.

I think this is nonsense but you may be talking about a different year than I am.

ATT was not effective. That was why it was forced to break up.

And what part was that of the core business? .000000000000000001%? If ATT had known how to do OS business, Unix would not have had to take three decades before becoming a default OS.

Of course not. And you are exhibiting the point you are missing. You talk about ATT's "needs". This implies that ATT was its own customer, and nobody else. Now think about that saying about doctors and lawyers and fools.

You never heard it because it was my speculation, and only my speculation.

I could probably come up with 50 other scenarios that fit the facts, too.

And that should tell you that it was not something that had to do with the real business of the company.

And that should tell you that the company has lost its direction. A review of the business plan would be in order.

Now you're dragging politics and graft into the discussion. Why? I'm trying to discuss how a company cannot do a 180 degree turn against its folklore. A company's folklore is its initial set of buttumptions (business plan) and everything it learned to do and not do over the years to make money. This learning also includes the working infrastructure that grew within it to get the work done. This working infrastructure is the most important piece of a company and I don't see many people understanding what I'm talking about.

BAH

BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.