My employer completed migration of apps to Linux - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on My employer completed migration of apps to Linux - Ubuntu ; A while ago I mentioned the our company that I work for, runs some proprietary homegrown apps some of which are quite demanding on both CPU and network. They were running on windows. At some point we started having big ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 250

Thread: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

  1. My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    A while ago I mentioned the our company that I work for, runs some
    proprietary homegrown apps some of which are quite demanding on both
    CPU and network.

    They were running on windows.

    At some point we started having big performance problems with them and
    started running out of datacenter rack space also due to needing to
    have a lot of computers.

    We were lucky since we tried to keep our apps away from using
    Microsoft specific libraries and so on. So we tried running these apps
    on linux.

    They ran much better.

    We started moving this stuff to Linux and reorganized things by making
    everything much more scriptable. In fact, these servers are set up b
    yplopping in a custom disk and running the disk. Usually all that the
    installer has to specify is the hostname. They all run the same
    scripts, self update, etc. I manage them, but I never have to go to
    all of them one after another and do some manual stuff like clicking
    icons and **** like that. There is about 30+ servers, not really
    taking much of my time any more.

    The end result of improving performance was that we could combine
    approximately 5 windows servers into one linux server. We started off
    with about 100 Windows servers and ended with about 20 active linux
    servers. (the remaining ones adding to 30+ are things like hot spares
    and boxes waiting for their turn to be used etc).

    We actually use those underutilized ones as compile servers.Thus,
    libraries that would take 20 minutes to compile under Windows, would
    take only under 2 minutes to compile with Linux. (windows is not
    capable of parallel compiles due to issues with PDB files and so on)

    So the end result is that all our server side stuff is running on
    Linux, so some of our developers who were developing on Windows only,
    are now slowly going into Linux also.

    Because we reduced the number of servers, we are no longer running out
    of rackpspace.

    Due to much improved scripting, our production support people are also
    able to do a lot less. I have extensive experience with Windows
    scripting and it cannot compare due to various Windows nonsense.

    Altogether, the efforts to maintain those linux boxes and their
    software (including our software) are many times less than that
    required for Windows, plus no performance issues. Changes can be
    rolled out in minutes. Scripts make a lot less mistakes than humans,
    etc.

    So, as a final tally I think that everyone is very happy about this
    move. The windows centered computer administrators were apprehensive
    in the beginning, but now they see it as less work. Plus people with
    Linux on resumes are paid 15-20% more, according to Microsoft, so they
    like this aspect.
    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  2. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Ignoramus27079 wrote:

    > A while ago I mentioned the our company that I work for, runs some
    > proprietary homegrown apps some of which are quite demanding on both
    > CPU and network.
    >
    > They were running on windows.
    >
    > At some point we started having big performance problems with them and
    > started running out of datacenter rack space also due to needing to
    > have a lot of computers.
    >
    > We were lucky since we tried to keep our apps away from using
    > Microsoft specific libraries and so on. So we tried running these apps
    > on linux.
    >
    > They ran much better.
    >
    > We started moving this stuff to Linux and reorganized things by making
    > everything much more scriptable. In fact, these servers are set up b
    > yplopping in a custom disk and running the disk. Usually all that the
    > installer has to specify is the hostname. They all run the same
    > scripts, self update, etc. I manage them, but I never have to go to
    > all of them one after another and do some manual stuff like clicking
    > icons and **** like that. There is about 30+ servers, not really
    > taking much of my time any more.
    >
    > The end result of improving performance was that we could combine
    > approximately 5 windows servers into one linux server. We started off
    > with about 100 Windows servers and ended with about 20 active linux
    > servers. (the remaining ones adding to 30+ are things like hot spares
    > and boxes waiting for their turn to be used etc).
    >
    > We actually use those underutilized ones as compile servers.Thus,
    > libraries that would take 20 minutes to compile under Windows, would
    > take only under 2 minutes to compile with Linux. (windows is not
    > capable of parallel compiles due to issues with PDB files and so on)
    >
    > So the end result is that all our server side stuff is running on
    > Linux, so some of our developers who were developing on Windows only,
    > are now slowly going into Linux also.
    >
    > Because we reduced the number of servers, we are no longer running out
    > of rackpspace.
    >
    > Due to much improved scripting, our production support people are also
    > able to do a lot less. I have extensive experience with Windows
    > scripting and it cannot compare due to various Windows nonsense.
    >
    > Altogether, the efforts to maintain those linux boxes and their
    > software (including our software) are many times less than that
    > required for Windows, plus no performance issues. Changes can be
    > rolled out in minutes. Scripts make a lot less mistakes than humans,
    > etc.
    >
    > So, as a final tally I think that everyone is very happy about this
    > move. The windows centered computer administrators were apprehensive
    > in the beginning, but now they see it as less work. Plus people with
    > Linux on resumes are paid 15-20% more, according to Microsoft, so they
    > like this aspect.


    Sounds like a good success story. Congratulations!

    Now, if you virtualized all those Linux servers you could reduce your
    hardware to two (2) physical servers and retain the same performance
    levels.

    Just my $01 worth

  3. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On 2008-10-31, Bob M wrote:
    > Sounds like a good success story. Congratulations!


    Thank you.

    > Now, if you virtualized all those Linux servers you could reduce your
    > hardware to two (2) physical servers and retain the same performance
    > levels.


    I would like to respectfully disagree. In our case, I see no reason
    for virtualization. Our apps coexist very well without
    virtualization. (they used not to, but we fixed it) They use quite a
    bit of CPU and cannot be possibly moved to two physical servers as
    there would not be enough CPU.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  4. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:03:52 -0500
    Ignoramus27079 wrote:

    > I would like to respectfully disagree. In our case, I see no reason
    > for virtualization. Our apps coexist very well without
    > virtualization. (they used not to, but we fixed it) They use quite a
    > bit of CPU and cannot be possibly moved to two physical servers as
    > there would not be enough CPU.


    Well, that depends... if you're on a dual processor 32-core system
    with several tens or hundreds of GB of RAM, virtualization might be
    possible and efficient...

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
    http://www.trausch.us/


  5. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:30:49 -0500, Ignoramus27079 wrote:

    Interesting. You seem to live up to your name. See below:

    > We were lucky since we tried to keep our apps away from using
    > Microsoft specific libraries and so on. So we tried running these apps
    > on linux.
    >
    > They ran much better.


    Wow, that's real ambiguous.

    > We actually use those underutilized ones as compile servers.Thus,
    > libraries that would take 20 minutes to compile under Windows, would
    > take only under 2 minutes to compile with Linux. (windows is not
    > capable of parallel compiles due to issues with PDB files and so on)


    This is patently false. Windows has had parallel compiling for years. The
    Command line has had options for it, but as of Visual Studio 2005 so does
    MSBuild.

    http://blogs.msdn.com/windows_instal...18/442753.aspx
    http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Faster...icoreCPUs.aspx
    http://vagus.wordpress.com/2008/02/1...l-studio-2005/

    etc.. etc..

    > Because we reduced the number of servers, we are no longer running out
    > of rackpspace.


    I highly doubt this vague, nebulous "runs better" comment. Esepcially
    since you don't even bother to mention what environments you're using, what
    tools you're using, what the apps do, etc..

    > Due to much improved scripting, our production support people are also
    > able to do a lot less. I have extensive experience with Windows
    > scripting and it cannot compare due to various Windows nonsense.


    Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    other scripting environment out there.

    Sounds more like you're either ignorant (thus your name) or lying or maybe
    both.

    > Altogether, the efforts to maintain those linux boxes and their
    > software (including our software) are many times less than that
    > required for Windows, plus no performance issues. Changes can be
    > rolled out in minutes. Scripts make a lot less mistakes than humans,
    > etc.


    And somehow you managed to retrain all your developers without any loss of
    productivity or migration issues. Yeah, right. If what you say is true,
    you have the single most amazing development staff on the planet.

    > So, as a final tally I think that everyone is very happy about this
    > move. The windows centered computer administrators were apprehensive
    > in the beginning, but now they see it as less work. Plus people with
    > Linux on resumes are paid 15-20% more, according to Microsoft, so they
    > like this aspect.


    Wow, not only are the amazing, they're also entirely even headed without
    any prejudices or predisposions. They don't care that their entire
    skillsets are suddenly being dumped and they have to relearn everything.

    I've never met a group of developers like that. You have quite a
    (ficticious) team there.

  6. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux


    "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote in message
    news:1er766k0amq90$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...

    > Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    > for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    > other scripting environment out there.


    When I hit this I knew your post was BS.

    God, it took Microsoft this long to figure out the power of a shell after
    how many years? And it is better than anything else?

    Hahahaha.... You also must be a MVP, Microsoft Vista Pusher too. Go an play
    in the vista group or something, it is more your speed.

    ---------
    MS Windows for boys
    X Windows for men



  7. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:10:32 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:

    > "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote in message
    > news:1er766k0amq90$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
    >
    >> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >> other scripting environment out there.

    >
    > When I hit this I knew your post was BS.
    >
    > God, it took Microsoft this long to figure out the power of a shell after
    > how many years? And it is better than anything else?
    >
    > Hahahaha.... You also must be a MVP, Microsoft Vista Pusher too. Go an play
    > in the vista group or something, it is more your speed.


    I notice you have absolutely zero technical arguments to dispute me.

    And powershell is not new, it's been around for a few years now.

  8. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:30:49 -0500, Ignoramus27079 wrote:
    >
    > Interesting.


    FUD.

  9. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    > for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    > other scripting environment out there.


    You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    check-boxes, *on Windows only*.

    So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and zsh
    don't have?

    An extension repository such as CPAN? Numerical libraries like Python?

    Looking at this feature matrix, it looks comparable to zsh, Python and Ruby.

    Blows the doors off of any other scripting environment out there? Sounds
    like you're drooling again. It's a Windows-only tool.

    --
    I'm successful because I'm lucky. The harder I work, the luckier I get.

  10. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 20:45:55 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >> other scripting environment out there.

    >
    > You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    > check-boxes, *on Windows only*.


    Yes, it's windows only.

    > So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and zsh
    > don't have?


    Actually, you are mixing shells with scripting languages. They're two
    different things, though shells do have scripting languages in them (often
    quite capable, but limited.. which is why full blown scripting languages
    exist)

    Also, you can use Perl, Python, Ruby, C#, VB, Eiffel, or any of the dozens
    of other .NET languages with Powershell as well.

    The thing that makes Powershell so.. well.. powerful is it's universal
    binding system (comparable at a certain level to the old Amiga ARexx
    system) as well as it's object oriented nature. Powershell can use objects
    from any .NET compiled library.

    Here's a quick review by a Linux oriented person.

    http://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/7...PowerShell.pdf

    While the actual shell window itself is pretty crude, there are several
    replacements such as:

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/

    Here's a quick example of something I don't think you can do with bash.
    You can set your prompt to a function call. So, suppose you want your
    prompt to reflect the status of a server. You can have your prompt call a
    function that determines this in real-time.

    Certianly, there are ways you could achieve that under bash, such as having
    your server set a global environt variable or file, but that would not be a
    real-time interactive facility.

    Another example, Powershell understands XML, and since it can use the .NET
    framework natively, i can do something like get all the headlines from the
    slashdot RSS feed with one line of code.

    PS C:\Users\erik> ([xml] (new-object
    System.Net.WebClient).DownloadString("http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot")).
    RDF.Item| select title

    title
    -----
    How To Supplement Election Coverage?
    Space Litter To Hit Earth Tomorrow
    More Sony Batteries Recalled
    Major Advances In Knot Theory
    Doom9 Researchers Break BD+
    Fallout 3 Launches Amidst Controversy
    Stealing Data With Obfuscated Code
    German Foreign Ministry Migrates Desktops To OSS
    Low-Income Users Latch On To iPhone
    Google May Scrap Yahoo Deal
    Why Netbooks Will Soon Cost $99
    Private Firm Plots Robotic Lunar Exploration
    HP Opens Up TouchSmart To Third-Party Developers
    Australia's ISPs Speak Out Against Filtering
    Motorola Moving to Android, Windows Mobile for Smartphones

    > An extension repository such as CPAN? Numerical libraries like Python?


    You can use all of them.

    > Looking at this feature matrix, it looks comparable to zsh, Python and Ruby.
    >
    > Blows the doors off of any other scripting environment out there? Sounds
    > like you're drooling again. It's a Windows-only tool.


    If your only requirement is cross platform capability, then maybe you've
    got a point. Personally, I don't care, i'd rather use the best tool for
    the job on any given platform.

  11. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 19:24:17 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:10:32 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    >> "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote in message
    >> news:1er766k0amq90$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
    >>
    >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >>> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >>> other scripting environment out there.

    >>
    >> When I hit this I knew your post was BS.
    >>
    >> God, it took Microsoft this long to figure out the power of a shell after
    >> how many years? And it is better than anything else?
    >>
    >> Hahahaha.... You also must be a MVP, Microsoft Vista Pusher too. Go an play
    >> in the vista group or something, it is more your speed.

    >
    > I notice you have absolutely zero technical arguments to dispute me.
    >
    > And powershell is not new, it's been around for a few years now.


    Hahah!
    You took him apart and it's obvious from the lack of specific, technical
    comments that the others, like Terry "Telnet" Porter posted.

    Good job!

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  12. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On 2008-11-01, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:30:49 -0500, Ignoramus27079 wrote:
    >
    > Interesting. You seem to live up to your name. See below:
    >
    >> We were lucky since we tried to keep our apps away from using
    >> Microsoft specific libraries and so on. So we tried running these apps
    >> on linux.
    >>
    >> They ran much better.

    >
    > Wow, that's real ambiguous.


    I can try to clarify. I may be missing some things because I am drunk
    at the moment. In any case, the problems we had were with apps that
    would talk a lot on the network and/or write to a lot of files. The
    windows computer would be busy in kernel (say 60% busy) and not able
    to do that much, have timeouts etc. If we move same app to Linux, it
    would coolly run with the machine 95% idle. (as it should).


    >> We actually use those underutilized ones as compile servers.Thus,
    >> libraries that would take 20 minutes to compile under Windows, would
    >> take only under 2 minutes to compile with Linux. (windows is not
    >> capable of parallel compiles due to issues with PDB files and so on)

    >
    > This is patently false. Windows has had parallel compiling for years. The
    > Command line has had options for it, but as of Visual Studio 2005 so does
    > MSBuild.


    What we had was that all CL.EXE needed to access the same .PDB file,
    so we could not run more than one at a time.

    The parallel compile feature that I am referring to, goes beyond
    paralleling compile on one machine. It is called "distcc" (look up its
    man page if you would like) and it lets you distribute compiles across
    many machines. Since we usually have plenty of machines doing nothing,
    it is helpful.

    So, a compile of a big library that would take 20 minutes under
    Windows, would take 1.5 minutes under parallel compile in Linux.

    This is a big productivity improvement.


    > http://blogs.msdn.com/windows_instal...18/442753.aspx
    > http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Faster...icoreCPUs.aspx
    > http://vagus.wordpress.com/2008/02/1...l-studio-2005/
    >
    > etc.. etc..
    >
    >> Because we reduced the number of servers, we are no longer running out
    >> of rackpspace.

    >
    > I highly doubt this vague, nebulous "runs better" comment. Esepcially
    > since you don't even bother to mention what environments you're using, what
    > tools you're using, what the apps do, etc..


    Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, vs. Fedora and Ubuntu. I described
    performance issues in a previous paragraph.

    >> Due to much improved scripting, our production support people are also
    >> able to do a lot less. I have extensive experience with Windows
    >> scripting and it cannot compare due to various Windows nonsense.

    >
    > Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    > for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    > other scripting environment out there.
    >
    > Sounds more like you're either ignorant (thus your name) or lying or maybe
    > both.


    I know almost nothing about powershell and not about to embark on
    learning it, but I would not use a Windows only solution in any
    case. Bash, at least, is available anywhere, and though Windows gives
    it challenges, at least it works and has years of development behind
    it. Same applies to perl.

    What I have seen about powershell is that it is some sort of a gimmick
    that looks nice but has not been used for anything.

    >> Altogether, the efforts to maintain those linux boxes and their
    >> software (including our software) are many times less than that
    >> required for Windows, plus no performance issues. Changes can be
    >> rolled out in minutes. Scripts make a lot less mistakes than humans,
    >> etc.

    >
    > And somehow you managed to retrain all your developers without any
    > loss of productivity or migration issues. Yeah, right. If what you
    > say is true, you have the single most amazing development staff on
    > the planet.


    We generally do make a conscious effort not to hire stupid people.

    However, we did not retrain developers, as much as we tried to stay
    posix compliant in our programming. If a program says fopen, connect,
    select etc, it can usually run well under both platforms without too
    much effort. It is when you start using proprietary "features" like
    that powershell, or MFC, then you are stuck with a platform.

    We are not stuck with Linux either and our programs can run on
    Windows, and could probably be ported to FreeBSD without too much
    trouble.


    >> So, as a final tally I think that everyone is very happy about this
    >> move. The windows centered computer administrators were apprehensive
    >> in the beginning, but now they see it as less work. Plus people with
    >> Linux on resumes are paid 15-20% more, according to Microsoft, so they
    >> like this aspect.

    >
    > Wow, not only are the amazing, they're also entirely even headed
    > without any prejudices or predisposions. They don't care that their
    > entire skillsets are suddenly being dumped and they have to relearn
    > everything.


    Depends on what you mean by a skillset. An app is an app. If it has
    to, say, read a file and ask some server about something, and then
    send a few messages, a developer's "skillset" lets them do it under
    any OS.

    In the end, I think, it will come to people learning something new,
    such as how to write scripts that do their work instead of mouse
    clicking.

    > I've never met a group of developers like that. You have quite a
    > (ficticious) team there.


    Just some real life. If you were in Chicago area, you could stop by my
    house and I would show you how this stuff running, remotely, without
    disclosing anything propetary or giving you physical access to work
    etc.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  13. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:30:49 -0500, Ignoramus27079 wrote:
    >
    > Interesting. You seem to live up to your name. See below:
    >

    [snipped a lot of crap]

    Dot't you get it in your thick scull?

    He Likes Linux and don't want to use Windows. Thats it!
    Nothing more, nothing less.

    Why does he have to defend his choice as Linux is obviously
    working for him? Is it a crime not to use windows?

    It looks to me like you are trying to say that...

    Seems to me like you are a arrogant (and maybe paid?)
    windows user trying to bash a Linux user for his (also in my
    opinion) good choice. Now - go home to your beloved Richmond
    an go play with the other brainless guys over there...

  14. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:46:36 -0500, Ignoramus10571 wrote:

    > I can try to clarify. I may be missing some things because I am drunk
    > at the moment. In any case, the problems we had were with apps that
    > would talk a lot on the network and/or write to a lot of files. The
    > windows computer would be busy in kernel (say 60% busy) and not able
    > to do that much, have timeouts etc. If we move same app to Linux, it
    > would coolly run with the machine 95% idle. (as it should).


    I think i understand your problem. You chose to use portable code to write
    your apps, which is fine, but not very performant on Windows. If you're
    doing heavy duty network and file I/O you're much better off using
    threading and async I/O rather than standard C functions.

    The problem is that standard C functions do not map well to the Windows
    Async API's. The same is true of using Async API's under Linux or Mac. If
    you want the best performance on any platform, you have to ditch portable
    API's and use the platform specific stuff.

    Linux, as it so happens, is much more oriented around standard C file I/O,
    so this maps well, and works a lot better (although you'd get better
    performance by using platform specific AIO functions). Under Windows, the
    standard C functions are wrappers and have a lot of intermediate bloat to
    massage them into something that Windows can understand.

    The fact of the matter is, if you want to write apps in a Unix way, you're
    better off running them on Linux. It's no surprise they 'work better'
    because you're trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

    >> This is patently false. Windows has had parallel compiling for years. The
    >> Command line has had options for it, but as of Visual Studio 2005 so does
    >> MSBuild.

    >
    > What we had was that all CL.EXE needed to access the same .PDB file,
    > so we could not run more than one at a time.
    >
    > The parallel compile feature that I am referring to, goes beyond
    > paralleling compile on one machine. It is called "distcc" (look up its
    > man page if you would like) and it lets you distribute compiles across
    > many machines. Since we usually have plenty of machines doing nothing,
    > it is helpful.
    >
    > So, a compile of a big library that would take 20 minutes under
    > Windows, would take 1.5 minutes under parallel compile in Linux.
    >
    > This is a big productivity improvement.


    That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't have any experience with
    distributed builds, but a quick search finds some tools that handle it,
    even with Visual Studio. For instance KJam and Incredibuild.

    http://www.oroboro.com/kjam//docserv...y#introduction
    http://www.xoreax.com/main.htm

    In particular, the Incredibuld faq talks about how seperate PDB files are
    generated on each distributed build server, etc.. There are some settings
    which can conflict with this, but it seems to indicate that this isn't
    generally a problem.

    > I know almost nothing about powershell and not about to embark on
    > learning it


    Instead you decided to learn bash and python and perl and a number of other
    technologies (or forced your developers to do so). In either case you're
    going to have a learning curve, so you can't use learning curve as an
    excuse.

    > but I would not use a Windows only solution in any case.


    Of course, because that would conflict with your prejudices.

    > Bash, at least, is available anywhere, and though Windows gives
    > it challenges, at least it works and has years of development behind
    > it. Same applies to perl.


    The point remains, if you want the best performance, you might have to step
    outside generic functionality.

    > What I have seen about powershell is that it is some sort of a gimmick
    > that looks nice but has not been used for anything.


    It's no gimmick. And it's already used for a lot, for instance, Exchange
    2007 requires it for maintenance and provides it's own Exchange sub-shell.

    > However, we did not retrain developers, as much as we tried to stay
    > posix compliant in our programming. If a program says fopen, connect,
    > select etc, it can usually run well under both platforms without too
    > much effort. It is when you start using proprietary "features" like
    > that powershell, or MFC, then you are stuck with a platform.


    And thus your problem. You did not use Windows in the way it's designed to
    be used, and instead decided to do high volume high intensive tasks with
    generic API's. Yes, Posix stuff will work on Windows, but you're going to
    lose performance. You would have been better off running it under Services
    for Unix, i think you would have gotten far better performance.

    > We are not stuck with Linux either and our programs can run on
    > Windows, and could probably be ported to FreeBSD without too much
    > trouble.


    As I said, since you want to write Unix programs for Windows, you might as
    well just run them on Unix.

  15. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 09:08:17 +0100, John Kloosterman wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:30:49 -0500, Ignoramus27079 wrote:
    >>
    >> Interesting. You seem to live up to your name. See below:
    >>

    > [snipped a lot of crap]
    >
    > Dot't you get it in your thick scull?
    >
    > He Likes Linux and don't want to use Windows. Thats it!
    > Nothing more, nothing less.


    I think the thickness is on yours. You've just succinctly stated my point.

    He had a pre existing prejudice against Windows, and he seemed to
    deliberately engineer his solutions in ways that would make them perform
    worse on Windows.

    > Why does he have to defend his choice as Linux is obviously
    > working for him? Is it a crime not to use windows?


    Of course not, but don't claim Linux is "better" when you didn't use
    Windows in the way it was designed to be used. It's like someone claiming
    they tried to use Linux for their apps (running under Wine) and that things
    just work better under Windows.

    That's not the fault of Linux (though it may be partially the fault of
    Wine).

    > It looks to me like you are trying to say that...


    That's because you can't seem to understand the point.

    > Seems to me like you are a arrogant (and maybe paid?)
    > windows user trying to bash a Linux user for his (also in my
    > opinion) good choice. Now - go home to your beloved Richmond
    > an go play with the other brainless guys over there...


    Yes, of course. Why is it whenever peoples conceptions are challenged,
    they immediately start calling people paid shills? Talk about "arrogance"
    to believe that you matter so much to a company like Microsoft that they
    would pay people to argue with you.

  16. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Windows has had parallel compiling for years.


    Like most things from Microsoft, it's /never/ worked properly.

    //snipped a load of marketing drivel///

    > I highly doubt this vague, nebulous "runs better" comment.


    You can "doubt" all you like. Without exception, /all/ /our/ hardware runs
    better /without/ the overhead, instability and insecurity of Windoze.

    > Esepcially since you don't even bother to mention what environments you're
    > using, what tools you're using, what the apps do, etc..


    All of which are probably commercially sensitive - I certainly wouldn't tell
    the world at large about what my company does with its computers.

    >> Due to much improved scripting, our production support people are also
    >> able to do a lot less.

    >
    > Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    > for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    > other scripting environment out there.


    *Wrong*

    >> Altogether, the efforts to maintain those linux boxes and their
    >> software (including our software) are many times less than that
    >> required for Windows, plus no performance issues. Changes can be
    >> rolled out in minutes. Scripts make a lot less mistakes than humans,
    >> etc.

    >
    > And somehow you managed to retrain all your developers without any loss of
    > productivity or migration issues. Yeah, right. If what you say is true,
    > you have the single most amazing development staff on the planet.


    My company was in a similar situation a few years ago. The developers were
    given the opportunity before the migration to retrain. Those who did
    continued in employment with us, those who refused (and there were a few)
    were "let go" because their skills were no longer appropriate for our working
    environment.

    > Wow, not only are the amazing, they're also entirely even headed without
    > any prejudices or predisposions. They don't care that their entire
    > skillsets are suddenly being dumped and they have to relearn everything.


    Anybody with real programming ability can relearn their "skillsets" quite
    quickly. Our better developers and system administrators were entirely happy
    to relearn "everything", because they recognised the advantages and the
    improvements that came with the migration. The ones who weren't interested
    were not of any use so no longer had jobs. It's a simple HR problem to
    resolve, particularly if their contracts include a clause that /demands/
    continual training updates.

    > I've never met a group of developers like that.


    You're obviously working amongst a bunch of useless "Microsoft Certified"
    morons. Microsoft "qualifications" are entirely worthless today, and we
    don't bother to hire anyone who brandishes such bogus crap at interview.

    C.


  17. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:10:32 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    >> "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote in message
    >> news:1er766k0amq90$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
    >>
    >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >>> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >>> other scripting environment out there.

    >>
    >> When I hit this I knew your post was BS.
    >>
    >> God, it took Microsoft this long to figure out the power of a shell after
    >> how many years? And it is better than anything else?
    >>
    >> Hahahaha.... You also must be a MVP, Microsoft Vista Pusher too. Go an play
    >> in the vista group or something, it is more your speed.

    >
    > I notice you have absolutely zero technical arguments to dispute me.
    >

    Well, since you brought no arguments to begin with, it's rather hard
    to dispute you with arguments, right?

    He who states a thing has to prove it, so why don't *you* produce
    arguments as to why PowerShell is the most advavnced scripting
    environment out there?

    Why should anyone else have to do *your* homework?

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  18. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 08:58:28 +0000
    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > > It's like someone claiming they tried to use Linux for their apps
    > > (running under Wine) and that things just work better under
    > > Windows.

    >
    > Bizarrely, a recent Windows port of an app that I wrote ran /much/
    > better under Wine than it did on Windows XP!


    Indeed, on my system, I can play Guild Wars on Ubuntu and it runs
    better under Wine than XP. Note that it depends on the version of Wine
    and the exact configuration---some tweaking is necessary here and
    there---but GW tends to be more responsive. I am going to wager that
    at least _part_ of it is due to more efficient caching of disks, since
    GW is so I/O intensive.

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
    http://www.trausch.us/


  19. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 20:45:55 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >>> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >>> other scripting environment out there.

    >>
    >> You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    >> check-boxes, *on Windows only*.

    >
    > Yes, it's windows only.
    >
    >> So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and zsh
    >> don't have?

    >
    > Actually, you are mixing shells with scripting languages.




    Say, you didn't specify shells, Erik. You specified *scripting
    environments*.

    Moving the goalposts much?

    Why do you object to being called names like 'weasel' and 'liar' when
    the hard facts are right there in your own words?

    ****ing weasel.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  20. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Bizarrely, a recent Windows port of an app that I wrote ran /much/ better
    > under Wine than it did on Windows XP!


    I've seen this with many applications. I assume it's because my screen
    isn't full of pointless effects, and my page file isn't being hammered
    every time I open a file, change an application, breathe and so on.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast