

Why buying software from IBM sucks - 173 hour response time - libpcap
http://blog.assembla.com/assemblablog/tabid/12618/bid/11077/Why-buying-software-from-IBM-sucks-173-hour-response-time.aspx

======
JacobAldridge
Firstly, the conclusion is probably a fair inditement on IBM compared to many
other service providers. But two things bugged me, and one thing made me
think.

Comparing IBM to companies like Fog Creek and then objecting to their vastly
different processes (as if it were a surprise) comes across as a little naive.
Yes, IBM have subject matter experts, pricing experts, sales reps and
developers who don't talk to each other much. Because IBM is freakin' huge.
They _need_ to specialise, and while they likely suffer from corporate bloat
in that regard, IBM have almost as many offices in one Australia state (NSW -
12) than Altassian (3), Fog Creek (1), and CollabNet (10) seem to have
collectively globally.

Obviously the OP has never come across the SME acronym either - I can assure
you it's not nearly as silly sounding in the business world as discussing an
Agile Scrum. It also reflects the segmentation and specialisation of companies
like IBM (and many much, much smaller). Most SMEs I know identify themselves
as such because it ensures they get the support they need - if you're going to
talk to IBM you want them to know quickly that you're not the next $3M sale,
and knowing you're a SME helps you communicate as much. So the OP's treatment
of that acronym seemed to expose his experience in this area (limited) which
damaged the credibility of his conclusion (IBM sucks).

Enough of what annoyed me - what made me think? I want the HN consensus on the
topic raised by XKCD and observed is this quote from the OP -

 _(thanks alot guys ;)_

No, it's not me observing that "alot" isn't a word. It's wondering what to do
with a smiley face at the end of parentheses - <http://www.xkcd.com/541/>

I personally think it is worthy of a TED talk, though maybe only a 3 minute
one.

~~~
invisible
In all fairness, I think doubling up on the parenthesis is just a no-brainer.
I mean, let's examine the syntax and break down what we have to deal with:

1) We are executing an optional piece of text in a sentence such that we'd
like it to be read but not spoken aloud.

2) Often, these parenthetical statements are in themselves sentences that just
lack a piece of a full sentence, but can sometimes act as sentences in
themselves.

3) We want to express ourselves using an emoticon strictly concerning this
additional piece of information that is within the parenthesis.

4) Sometimes, parenthetical statements can contain an entire sentence. (For
example, this is one of those sentences :).) If we were to transform that into
an optional piece of a sentence, we would get something that drops the "for
example" and also drops the period which leaves us with two closing
parenthesis.

I hope that we can quickly adopt this new formatting and stick to it asap.

~~~
JacobAldridge
I now concur (at last, ;-)!)

