'Enterprise' is polysemous, because it is used by many different groups who percieve the importance of computer systems differently, e.g., managers who treat them as parts of his/her little empire, or the designers who are trying to build something to last. But lying somewhere between Paul's cynicism, Torben's idealism, and my open mockery is a definition we can use.
I contend this: 'Enterprise Class' is a way, not a tool; it is defined by the amount of human capital expended to keep it running, and the human importance of its uptime. To think that the tool is the way would be analogous to selling customers a 'bushido class' sword -- but the sword can know nothing of the way of life-in-death.
I did not emphasize my 'service' plank highly enough. I can sell mainframes to two companies; one has passing use of it, the other is totally reliant upon it. One looks for tools and 'wizards' to cut its IT staffing requirements; the other has people swarming over its code to spot problems before they happen, and certainly before tool vendors package them into shrink-wrap. One talks about 'Enterprise Class'; the other simply acts, and contends not with names and labels.
