This has a negative effect on costs, IT departments become paranoid about new technology adoption. You're either at the cutting edge or facing mass defections from your brightest and best. But the cost of being cutting edge is high in terms of this being the most expensive way to work and also the least reliable (cutting edge technology almost always having the most crippling bugs).
And there also comes a point where the individual would really like to sit back on their experience a bit, but can't cos there's always an 18 year old out-teching them.
There is a case to make for being behind the times and sticking with proven mature technologies. After all, nobody writes virii for Win98 and W2K is fairly secure these days, but nobody will take the risk. keep to the Fen Causeway
I think one problem is that decision makers prefer to invest in "technology" and to place trust in contracts and in other companies, rather than be dependent on the "engineers" in their own company.
(This is the same behavious as when an "average" person chooses a chain car-repair place over an independent one. At the independent one you are at the mercy of someone who knows stuff you do not. At the chain you are a customer.) -----sapere aude
Supposedly there is a rule somewhere that says that companies should concentrate on their core strength and outsource the rest, as an in-house department which is not subject to competitive pressure may underperform...
On the other hand, free-software advocates point out that most of the work done on software is not development but maintenance and support, and so there should be a lot of room for companies providing technical support for open-source software. In fact, an open standard which allows you to shop around for the best support provider is probably advantageous to the user. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
