Both obviously involve software, however, CS formally focuses on the study of capabilities and refinement of digital circuitry and the software written on top of it whereas SE formally focuses on the study of the process of writing software.

A Computer Scientist doesn't need to know about a Software Engineer's design patterns, even if it might improve the quality of the software. Likewise a Software Engineer doesn't really need to know the computational differences between various sort algorithms so long as one of them fits within his functional and technical specs and can be written in a well-documented, easily maintainable, easily testable, and easily replaceable manner. One might say that the best programmers for the workplace are going to be those that study both disciplines, and to be sure most school's definitely take steps to have a significant portion of shared curriculum between the two even if the lion's share is otherwise not directly related. On the whole, I'd lean towards most businesses preferring an SE skillset over a CS skillset.

While I suspect you were making a jab at waistlines, some of us are rather *tall* individuals. I can't speak for everyone else, but my legs are usually in need of medical attention after my business trips to London where I'm forced to cram myself into what amounts to a small suitcase on wheels for a week, all because my company doesn't want to fork over the cash for a proper sized "gas guzzler".

To further clarify, the trend began with what's called the Restoration Movement. The modus operandi of this movement is to "restore" the church to it's roots and original intent/format. To do this, one must examine scripture to determine the authority/validity of any given religious practice, as opposed to relying upon the traditions established by man after the establishment of the 1st century churches by Jesus' apostles.

With that said, there have always been arguments about certain portions of scripture being literal or figurative. Many of the various denominations of Protestant Christianity basically differ in regards to interpretations being more literal or more figurative. Mind you, at this point we're simply talking about the New Testament and it's implications for church practices and personal behavior.

On the literal side, the reason for doing so is quite simple: fear of assuming too much and being wrong about it. It was said that the letters of the apostles were written with "divine inspiration" per the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" bestowed upon them. So in terms of interpreting these letters, as well as the gospel accounts, in order to establish acceptable (in God's eyes) church practices and personal behavior, it's actually the most rational thing to do. Incidentally, it's also the least outwardly conflicting (in terms of butting heads with the rest of society).

Over the years, however, this mentality has evolved (hehe) into a consideration by many that all of scripture, and not just the New Testament letters, was composed through "divine inspiration" and should thus be thought of as the literal writing of God himself. It doesn't take long for someone with this fallacy-wrought point of view to conclude that the account of creation in the Bible is a literal account of how things happened back then. Inconsistencies be damned, because God, the author, is perfect (the Bible even says so) and therefore any naysayers are obviously wrong.

I happen to attend church at one of these kinds of ultra-literal denominations (Church of Christ). I do so mainly for my arguments given above in regards to church practices and personal behavior. But I do vomit a little every time the preacher, an elder, or one of my other church family members starts to spout nonsense in light of "divine inspiration".

Hence why you hire more devs specifically to support LTS versioning and incorporate higher service contract prices to account for the extra overhead you have to incur to support it. The success of that will also still greatly depend upon what they define as LTS. An "extended by three years" timeline of support still won't be long enough for some businesses. One company I consulted for decided to turn down implementing Oracle and instead just bought out a small-time ERP shop for the sole reason that Oracle wasn't willing to sell them a guarantee for 10-years of support on the version they were pitching (10g at the time I think?).

The same can be said for why IE6, despite it's legion of flaws and security shortcomings, was so loved by big business (though not necessarily by their IT divisions). There were never more than a few foreseeable minor changes to account for (i.e. pay for development) and they had a nice little dedicated support service to call in case they needed help with something whether that was talking directly to Microsoft or a multitude of support firms that handled IE6 support as a 3rd party solutions.

Those are the kinds of things that enterprises are looking for. High degrees of reliability, and increasingly low costs. Super speedily optimized runtimes, flashy graphics, and expanded functionality are nice, but ultimately tertiary in nature and even anathema if they mess around with reliability or cost. Security fixes are considered secondary and still way more important than the tertiary things, however they likewise must always avoid messing with reliability and cost if the enterprise is going to be happy about it.

It is in that light that I have a hard time identifying with IT shops that bitch and moan about FF doing wonky versioning shenanigans that all of a sudden break their apps. FF is and never has been designed for the enterprise mindset (most of the open-source world is like that for that matter). Now... if they were developing an eFirefox that was designed around the enterprise mindset and pulled a stunt like this, then ya I'd roast 'em too. Sure it sucks that there hasn't really been any solid LTS browser solution since IE6, but that doesn't mean businesses all of a sudden get free reign to treat all the vendors like LTS vendors if those vendors aren't specifically wanting/trying to fill that space. I see the lack of LTS browser vendors as a prerogative for enterprises to put pressure on in-house development and 3rd party web app vendors to enforce standards and more extensive quality assurance so that their software is almost guaranteed to last beyond a version number or two of any given browser.