[Leaplist] [Meta/OT] The adverse risk of moving POSIX/Java to Windows/.NET -- WAS: broken under XP SP3

[Bryan J. Smith]

Patrick wrote:  
> I agree with the DOD, DOT (IT management over the
> FAA), the TSA, NSA, CIA, NASA, in prohibiting any
> testing or use  of Vista, or  XP SP3!

Fred wrote:  
> Patrick can you site a source for the above comment
> I would like to read it..

I think there is a merger of many corporate and government
IT edicts going on here.

First off, there are a lot of IT edicts on not allowing Vista
and the latest XP SP3 in-house.  I know some are just starting
to test Vista SP1 (which is NT 6.1, not NT 6.0, matching
Windows Server 2008) as well as XP SP3.

Secondly, the EAL certification on Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Server (RHEL Server) and Desktop (RHD aka RHEL Client), SUSE
Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) and Desktop (SLED) and their
standardization for various buying entities has caused a
number of organizations and agencies to start favoring a Linux
platform.  This, combined with the next items, is what is
really driving a lot of this.

Because, third, a number of organizations and entities have
"bought into" the Microsoft Windows/.NET platform, and they
are regretting it.  The Linux POSIX/Java solution is evolutionary
from a lot of legacy POSIX and newer Java code already running
on UNIX.  With Microsoft Windows/.NET, many, many enterprises,
agencies and the like are writing new code, and chucking most
legacy code (most adaption/conversion is not reliable).

Patrick cites the FAA.  A little Googl'ing turns up a lot of
hearsay.  The same goes for the London Stock Exchange (LSE).
How much of this hearsay that is true is anyone's guess, but
it's clear there is a systemmatic effort by Microsoft to squash
the facts, for certain.

E.g., it took a long time for those involved with the September
LSE crash to finally come out and say it was platform related,
and not load.  And even the "default" answer on the platform is
someone pointing the finger at Accenture, and not Microsoft.
I've also read that it was platform itself, and the .NET code
just made it far worse.

- I'm just an engineer, mitigating risk is my job ...

In reality, I could care less about "blame" and I look at the
"risk" that the LSE undertook.  Instead of doing what the NYSE
did, and adopt Linux, bring over existing POSIX code on a POSIX
like platform and newer Java investments, the LSE chucked all
that legacy, brought in Accenture, and started porting/writing
a lot to a Windows-only .NET platform.  Write once, stay locked.

Combined with the integration/regression issues I've pointed out
prior, this Microsoft Professional cannot -- in good
conscience -- recommend any conversion to a Windows/.NET platform
when a legacy system/infrastructure is already POSIX/Java.  That
is something some organizations/agencies are "just waking up to,"
after-the-fact.

I.e., it's one thing to argue Linux v. Microsoft, GNU/POSIX v.
Windows, Java v. .NET, in general.  But it's a completely other
thing to move to Windows/.NET when the codebase has been POSIX/
Java and working for years, if not decades in the case of some
POSIX codebases.  How Microsoft is able to sell such institutions
on such a move is anyone's guess, but it's clear Microsoft does
this because they want the codebase out from an "open system"
and into a vendor locked platform.

Because the Microsoft model, which extends from everything from
the Superstore to Gold Partners, is to get enterprises to upgrade
their base platforms every 2-3 years and completely uproot their
codebases every 4-5.  That is not sustainable for enterprises.

As much as people try to claim that Microsoft maintains their
API for years, this is not true at all -- from the Platform to
the Desktop to the Server.  Red Hat, on the other hand, has
shown that it is more than capable at building a C/C++ platform
and object model that is good for nearly a good decade running
now (GCC 2.96, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1), with compatibility libraries
backwards.  I've yet to see anything of the same out of any
Windows or newer .NET developments.  Combined with .NET v.
Java, especially when the codebase is already Java.

The Windows platform is already a mesh of inter-dependent
non-sense, with little code control piecemeal as much as little
whole.  If the GNU/Linux platform wasn't a natural symbios of
standards with independent components, then companies like
Red Hat, Novell, et al. would not be able to develop their
products at a fraction of the man-hours cost that Microsoft,
Sun and others do for their respective platforms that are not
community developed.

This is why community developed software continues to work and
be a sustainable, reusable codebase.  Standards-based interfaces,
APIs that win out based on adoption, buy-in from other developers
(instead of mandates, which often change anyway), etc...  That's
why more and more organizations and agencies, who need to 
install systems of software and codebases that will eventually
become legacy, choose the POSIX/Java platform in the first place,
and should never replace it.

With Linux on the PC offering the same economies of scale as
Windows on the PC, the choice is clear.  At least for institutions
that have existing investments in a POSIX platform, and especially
for Java.  If not, then it depends on other factors, although it
does make sense to evaluate Linux and the POSIX/Java platform in
general, since it already has established systems for similar.

-- Bryan

P.S.  Although many noted that it was more than coincidence that
Red Hat rang in the NYSE bell last week, exactly 1 month (30 days)
after the LSE was down for nearly the entire day (over 7 hours,
the same day the US federal government bought up Fannie and
Freddie, and many traders at the LSE were pretty upset about
that).


-- 
Bryan J Smith          Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith at ieee.org    http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
--------------------------------------------------------
I don't have a "favorite Linux distro."  I use, develop
and support community efforts, often built around Linux.
Technology and solutions are my focus, not dragging in
assumptions, marketing and other concepts which dominate
non-community developed software, which I left long ago.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.