Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 1st Apr 2007 15:02 UTC, submitted by WillM
OSNews, Generic OSes "The server operating system wars never seem to slow down. Last week it was Red Hat's turn with the announcement of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, which incorporates the Xen open source hypervisor. Naturally there's also the endless market speculation about the final feature set and likely arrival date of Windows Server 2007. And then there's Solaris, which with its nice value-add features like DTrace and its new status as open source software is making something of a comeback, it seems."
Thread beginning with comment 226521
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Really Meaningless
by Laurence on Mon 2nd Apr 2007 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Really Meaningless "
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

True, but at the same time, alot of it is cluelessness


Maybe, but if you know you have a massive resource base (expensive or not) to rely upon during setup or in case the worst happens - then it makes sense to go with that company. After all, a payroll server (for example) crashing could prove very very damaging to a company if no-one is there with specialise knowlage to suport the system.

for example, I deployed a fleet of computers for a highschool; FreeBSD + GNOME + OpenOffice.org running ontop.


I appretiate your example, but my comments were more directed at companies that offer top-end solutions for business critical systems. While I agree in princible with what you've achieved, it wouldn't (in my opinion) be as practical to set up a payroll server (to use a previous example) "just to see what happens".
We use Oracle for our HR and payroll systems and while I don't particularly like the application itself, the support level for their systems is superb.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Really Meaningless
by kaiwai on Mon 2nd Apr 2007 22:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Really Meaningless "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe, but if you know you have a massive resource base (expensive or not) to rely upon during setup or in case the worst happens - then it makes sense to go with that company. After all, a payroll server (for example) crashing could prove very very damaging to a company if no-one is there with specialise knowlage to suport the system.


If one has no specialised knowledge to setup and maintain it, then it would be the perfect organisation for outsourcing, for example. In New Zealand, apart from small businesses with around 6 employees, I can't remember a single one which actually do their own payroll - most of the time its handled by Pay Global and a few other companies; there are also some banks who are now offering payroll services as part of their business packages.

I appretiate your example, but my comments were more directed at companies that offer top-end solutions for business critical systems. While I agree in princible with what you've achieved, it wouldn't (in my opinion) be as practical to set up a payroll server (to use a previous example) "just to see what happens".


Who said that? keep the current system running, and setup another system as a *MIRROR* to the first one - damn, does *ANYONE* read. I didn't say go out and simply just replace it, and pray for the best, I said, get/obtain/find ANOTHER server not being used, and load it up, and test it on a seperate server.

We use Oracle for our HR and payroll systems and while I don't particularly like the application itself, the support level for their systems is superb.


True, but my point is; its when people turn down the alternatives simply because it isn't as 'cool' as what they're used to; for me, I can float between 4 different office suites and complete the same task with ease - why? because firstly I know the basic fundamentals of office tasks, which can be transposed onto any number of office suites, and secondly, because ultimately my focus is on outcome, not whether my feng shui is inlinement or whether the GUI is bogged down in eye candy.

Thats the point I'm getting at; its not about the fact that a company *chooses* a certain application, but the method of which they came to that conclusion - "we need to use Office because it has this feature [feature]", for example, whilst ignoring that OpenOffice.org/StarOffice can accomplish the same thing using a different method - then the compounded failure of asking whether the extra $200 they pay for Office is really worth doing something in that way; is the organisation going to get back that $200 in terms of productivity improvements through the use of the new feature vs. doing in the way one would on OpenOfice.org/StarOffice?

Edited 2007-04-02 22:57

Reply Parent Score: 2