Dimdows Mentality In A Linux World

JohnO wrote:
>
> One of my clients is moving off MS and SQLServer to IBM iSeries and
> DB2-400! That's my two biggest customers now on that platform now. So
> I'm swimming against the tide a bit having moved from mainly *nix to
> mainly MS to mainly iSeries (but they all run windows clients). 10
> years ago if you asked me if I would be using a 5250 green screen on
> an IBM mid range box I would have laughed out loud.
>
> But the really surprising thing is the cost savings these customers
> are achieving by switching to these gold plated 400kg servers. I'm
> always urging other suitable clients to consider this move.
>
> Hoodathunkit?

I've got a couple of clients who had done similar things although their
move has been to Sun/Oracle. The catalyst for making the move has been
performance improvement but the associated cost savings are a
significant bonus.

EMB

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <hctmvc$f33$>, EMB wrote:
>
>> As usual you're just convincing those of us who can *choose* to use
>> Linux not to make that choice.
>
> I’m not here to convince anybody.

ROTFL - why else do you spend vast amounts of time and energy
proclaiming linux to be superior to all else?

EMB

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:34:19 +1300, EMB wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <hd0ucc$9s7$>, EMB wrote:
>>
>>> The auditors understand and *like* MS environments and seem somewhat
>>> allergic to linux. They also like seeing one backup solution applied
>>> across the enterprise.
>>
>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>
> That's a very good point. However the decisions about auditors are made
> at a level above the IS manager so all we (the IS department) can do is
> meet the audit requirements in a cost effective and efficient manner.

So you chose the more expensive route rather than migrate away from using Microsoft software.

You could have educated your auditors.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

Carnations

In message <hd255h$r3f$>, EMB wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <hctmvc$f33$>, EMB wrote:
>>
>>> As usual you're just convincing those of us who can *choose* to use
>>> Linux not to make that choice.
>>
>> I’m not here to convince anybody.
>
> ROTFL - why else do you spend vast amounts of time and energy
> proclaiming linux to be superior to all else?

I could ask the same sort of thing of you.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

EMB wrote:
> Enkidu wrote:
>> EMB wrote:
>>>
>>> For example we have just migrated a database from MySQL/Linux to
>>> MSSQL/Windows. Sure, the licensing has cost a bit, but the reduction
>>> in external bullshit we have to put with more than justifies the
>>> expense.
>>>
>> What do you mean?
>
> The auditors understand and *like* MS environments and seem somewhat
> allergic to linux. They also like seeing one backup solution applied
> across the enterprise. I don't necessarily agree, but if it means I
> have a quiet life an everything runs smoothly I'm unlikely to rock the
> boat.
>
If you are going to have to backup your Windows machines with
proprietary software and the software also supports Unix/Linux then it
does make sense to do it with one solution across the board.

Actually, I meant about the migration from MySQL/Linux to Windows. Is
the reason the same?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.

Enkidu

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <hd0ucc$9s7$>, EMB wrote:
>
>> The auditors understand and *like* MS environments and seem somewhat
>> allergic to linux. They also like seeing one backup solution applied
>> across the enterprise.
>
> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>
No one. In my experience, no one questions the auditors, except on
relatively trivial things. You certainly can't suggest that the auditors
have made a balls up.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.

Enkidu

Carnations wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:34:19 +1300, EMB wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message <hd0ucc$9s7$>, EMB wrote:
>>>
>>>> The auditors understand and *like* MS environments and seem
>>>> somewhat allergic to linux. They also like seeing one backup
>>>> solution applied across the enterprise.
>>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>> That's a very good point. However the decisions about auditors are
>> made at a level above the IS manager so all we (the IS department)
>> can do is meet the audit requirements in a cost effective and
>> efficient manner.
>
> So you chose the more expensive route rather than migrate away from
> using Microsoft software.
>
> You could have educated your auditors.
>
And off we go to Lennierland. Check in your brains and your hold on
reality at the gate.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.

Enkidu

Enkidu wrote:
>
> Actually, I meant about the migration from MySQL/Linux to Windows. Is
> the reason the same?

There were lots of reasons which all combined to make it the logical
choice. We have a better Win/MSSQL skill base, it fits in with an
existing cluster to give a failover option, it shuts the auditors up,
and it gives management a nice warm secure feeling.

EMB

Enkidu wrote:
> Carnations wrote:

>> So you chose the more expensive route rather than migrate away from
>> using Microsoft software.
>>
>> You could have educated your auditors.
>>
> And off we go to Lennierland. Check in your brains and your hold on
> reality at the gate.

You beat me to it Cliff.

EMB

Carnations wrote:
>
> So you chose the more expensive route rather than migrate away from using Microsoft software.

The cost difference is minimal in the overall IS budget.
>
> You could have educated your auditors.

You've obviously never worked in a large corporate with external auditors.

EMB