OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons - VMS

This is a discussion on OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons - VMS ; I am considering the cost benefits or otherwise of moving some sw off OpenVMS to Linux. I would like to hear about the pros and cons. Hopefully this will not start a flamewar, I really do want to know! Here, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

  1. OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    I am considering the cost benefits or otherwise of moving some sw off
    OpenVMS to Linux. I would like to hear about the pros and cons.
    Hopefully this will not start a flamewar, I really do want to know!

    Here, as I see it, are the main issues:

    OpenVMS does not support the latest version of third party products we
    use (e.g only Oracle 10g is supported).

    Most companies wont train people in VMS even if they use VMS kit. This
    makes developers shy away (they prefer to know about they platform
    they work on).

    OpenVMS offers better reliability due to clustering.

    VMS hardware is very reliable.

    A port away from VMS would be a generic Unix port rather than a port
    that ties it to Linux. This would enable commercial unix
    implementations such as Solaris to be used.

    Unix SAs are very thin on the ground these days. At least my client
    already has the VMS ops people it needs.

    Regards,

    Andrew Marlow

  2. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    In article <5a32bef6-9882-4036-8aa1-7128e150f92c@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, marlow.andrew@googlemail.com writes:
    > I am considering the cost benefits or otherwise of moving some sw off
    > OpenVMS to Linux. I would like to hear about the pros and cons.
    > Hopefully this will not start a flamewar, I really do want to know!
    >
    > Here, as I see it, are the main issues:
    >
    > OpenVMS does not support the latest version of third party products we
    > use (e.g only Oracle 10g is supported).


    Yep, that's common.

    > Most companies wont train people in VMS even if they use VMS kit. This
    > makes developers shy away (they prefer to know about they platform
    > they work on).


    VMS is so easy to learn, and there are so many people who already
    know it, that that is just an excuse, not a reason.

    > OpenVMS offers better reliability due to clustering.


    And better security by design.

    > VMS hardware is very reliable.


    You can't prove that by my old VAX 11/780. But later VAXen and
    all my Alphas have been good.

    > A port away from VMS would be a generic Unix port rather than a port
    > that ties it to Linux. This would enable commercial unix
    > implementations such as Solaris to be used.


    The big issue is to find out whether the application is using any VMS
    specific features, and how close you can come to them on some other
    platform.

    > Unix SAs are very thin on the ground these days. At least my client
    > already has the VMS ops people it needs.


    A very good reason not to port!


  3. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    marlow.andrew@googlemail.com wrote:
    > I am considering the cost benefits or otherwise of moving some sw off
    > OpenVMS to Linux. I would like to hear about the pros and cons.
    > Hopefully this will not start a flamewar, I really do want to know!
    >
    > Here, as I see it, are the main issues:
    >
    > OpenVMS does not support the latest version of third party products we
    > use (e.g only Oracle 10g is supported).
    >
    > Most companies wont train people in VMS even if they use VMS kit. This
    > makes developers shy away (they prefer to know about they platform
    > they work on).
    >
    > OpenVMS offers better reliability due to clustering.
    >
    > VMS hardware is very reliable.
    >
    > A port away from VMS would be a generic Unix port rather than a port
    > that ties it to Linux. This would enable commercial unix
    > implementations such as Solaris to be used.
    >
    > Unix SAs are very thin on the ground these days. At least my client
    > already has the VMS ops people it needs.


    If you need some third party software that is no longer available
    on VMS, then you need to move from VMS to *nix.

    If you have sufficient customers that want your stuff on *nix
    and will not accept it on VMS, then you need to add *nix as
    supported platform.

    If not then do nothing (porting is about as much fun as
    visiting the dentist).

    But you should not be surprised if one the two first is the case.

    Arne

  4. RE: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Arne Vajh°j [mailto:arne@vajhoej.dk]
    > Sent: May 27, 2008 9:10 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons
    >
    > marlow.andrew@googlemail.com wrote:
    > > I am considering the cost benefits or otherwise of moving some sw off
    > > OpenVMS to Linux. I would like to hear about the pros and cons.
    > > Hopefully this will not start a flamewar, I really do want to know!
    > >
    > > Here, as I see it, are the main issues:
    > >
    > > OpenVMS does not support the latest version of third party products

    > we
    > > use (e.g only Oracle 10g is supported).
    > >
    > > Most companies wont train people in VMS even if they use VMS kit.

    > This
    > > makes developers shy away (they prefer to know about they platform
    > > they work on).
    > >
    > > OpenVMS offers better reliability due to clustering.
    > >
    > > VMS hardware is very reliable.
    > >
    > > A port away from VMS would be a generic Unix port rather than a port
    > > that ties it to Linux. This would enable commercial unix
    > > implementations such as Solaris to be used.
    > >
    > > Unix SAs are very thin on the ground these days. At least my client
    > > already has the VMS ops people it needs.

    >
    > If you need some third party software that is no longer available
    > on VMS, then you need to move from VMS to *nix.
    >
    > If you have sufficient customers that want your stuff on *nix
    > and will not accept it on VMS, then you need to add *nix as
    > supported platform.
    >
    > If not then do nothing (porting is about as much fun as
    > visiting the dentist).
    >
    > But you should not be surprised if one the two first is the case.
    >
    > Arne


    Arne,

    You forgot one scenario under the current scenario. Instead of "do nothing",
    you could also add
    - upgrade current environment to use latest gui mgmt tools which will simplify
    the Operational support environment such that any Operator who can handle amouse
    can manage an OpenVMS system.

    Other consideration as well-
    - is your management under extreme pressures to reduce IT costs and have in
    place a 2-3 year plan to consolidate servers, OS instances (where biggest
    staff costs are hidden) and Data Centers?

    If yes, one bus app per OS instance platforms may not be the right target
    environment. There are cultural and technical challenges to be considered
    which will make it extremely difficult to consolidate at some future point.

    As Wayne Gretzsky used to say "skate to where the puck will be, not where it
    is right now."

    :-)


    Regards

    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-254-8911
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.








  5. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    Arne Vajh°j wrote:

    > marlow.andrew@googlemail.com wrote:
    > If you need some third party software that is no longer available
    > on VMS, then you need to move from VMS to *nix.


    The third party components are available but not the most recent
    versions.

    >
    > If you have sufficient customers that want your stuff on *nix
    > and will not accept it on VMS, then you need to add *nix as
    > supported platform.


    The use of VMS is internal - customer neither know nor care.

    -Andrew M.

  6. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    On May 27, 9:27 am, marlow.and...@googlemail.com wrote:
    > I am considering the cost benefits or otherwise of moving some sw off
    > OpenVMS to Linux. I would like to hear about the pros and cons.
    > Hopefully this will not start a flamewar, I really do want to know!
    >
    > Here, as I see it, are the main issues:
    >
    > OpenVMS does not support the latest version of third party products we
    > use (e.g only Oracle 10g is supported).
    >
    > Most companies wont train people in VMS even if they use VMS kit. This
    > makes developers shy away (they prefer to know about they platform
    > they work on).
    >
    > OpenVMS offers better reliability due to clustering.
    >
    > VMS hardware is very reliable.
    >
    > A port away from VMS would be a generic Unix port rather than a port
    > that ties it to Linux. This would enable commercial unix
    > implementations such as Solaris to be used.
    >
    > Unix SAs are very thin on the ground these days. At least my client
    > already has the VMS ops people it needs.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Andrew Marlow


    Andrew,

    Without knowing the specifics of your situation (e.g., what your
    software does and how it goes about doing it and which third part
    products are involved) it is almost impossible to make detailed
    comments. There are too many issues which can change the topic.

    Insofar as Oracle is concerned, I just attended (and spoke with)
    Oracle's team at the OpenVMS Bootcamp, and the their product roadmap
    made sense. Because of the NDA, I am somewhat reluctant to comment in
    a public forum on what was said. If Oracle is of particular interest,
    contact me privately and I will see if I can put you directly in touch
    with the relevant person.

    On other products, it is a question of which products, whether they
    are proprietary, or whether they are Open Source. If they are Open
    Source, then the easiest thing to do may be just to port them
    yourself. If they are proprietary, and only available off-platform,
    there are a variety of products, including CONNX, that allow one to
    "have one's cake and eat it too".

    In the end analysis, there is no generally correct answer, all the
    details must be checked before going down this path. If I can be of
    assistance privately, please let me know.

    - Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com

  7. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    In article , Bob Gezelter writes:
    >On May 27, 9:27 am, marlow.and...@googlemail.com wrote:
    >> I am considering the cost benefits or otherwise of moving some sw off
    >> OpenVMS to Linux. I would like to hear about the pros and cons.
    >> Hopefully this will not start a flamewar, I really do want to know!
    >>
    >> Here, as I see it, are the main issues:
    >>
    >> OpenVMS does not support the latest version of third party products we
    >> use (e.g only Oracle 10g is supported).
    >>
    >> Most companies wont train people in VMS even if they use VMS kit. This
    >> makes developers shy away (they prefer to know about they platform
    >> they work on).
    >>
    >> OpenVMS offers better reliability due to clustering.
    >>
    >> VMS hardware is very reliable.
    >>
    >> A port away from VMS would be a generic Unix port rather than a port
    >> that ties it to Linux. This would enable commercial unix
    >> implementations such as Solaris to be used.
    >>
    >> Unix SAs are very thin on the ground these days. At least my client
    >> already has the VMS ops people it needs.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Andrew Marlow

    >
    >Andrew,
    >
    >Without knowing the specifics of your situation (e.g., what your
    >software does and how it goes about doing it and which third part
    >products are involved) it is almost impossible to make detailed
    >comments. There are too many issues which can change the topic.
    >
    >Insofar as Oracle is concerned, I just attended (and spoke with)
    >Oracle's team at the OpenVMS Bootcamp, and the their product roadmap
    >made sense. Because of the NDA, I am somewhat reluctant to comment in
    >a public forum on what was said. If Oracle is of particular interest,
    >contact me privately and I will see if I can put you directly in touch
    >with the relevant person.
    >
    >On other products, it is a question of which products, whether they
    >are proprietary, or whether they are Open Source. If they are Open
    >Source, then the easiest thing to do may be just to port them
    >yourself. If they are proprietary, and only available off-platform,
    >there are a variety of products, including CONNX, that allow one to
    >"have one's cake and eat it too".


    Save that with CONNX it's a really slow-rise batter.

    I've used CONNX at 2 sites. It gets you SQL like query access to RMS files
    but it takes much effort to get there and it's SLOW.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  8. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    marlow.andrew@googlemail.com wrote:
    > Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    >> marlow.andrew@googlemail.com wrote:
    >> If you need some third party software that is no longer available
    >> on VMS, then you need to move from VMS to *nix.

    >
    > The third party components are available but not the most recent
    > versions.
    >
    >> If you have sufficient customers that want your stuff on *nix
    >> and will not accept it on VMS, then you need to add *nix as
    >> supported platform.

    >
    > The use of VMS is internal - customer neither know nor care.


    To me it sounds as if that you can easily stay on VMS
    as long as the third party vendor is offering support on
    the "not the most recent version".

    Arne

  9. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    Main, Kerry wrote:
    >> If you have sufficient customers that want your stuff on *nix
    >> and will not accept it on VMS, then you need to add *nix as
    >> supported platform.


    > You forgot one scenario under the current scenario. Instead of "do nothing",
    > you could also add
    > - upgrade current environment to use latest gui mgmt tools which will simplify
    > the Operational support environment such that any Operator who can handle a mouse
    > can manage an OpenVMS system.


    Most customers has more requirements for their platforms than
    "it can be managed with a mouse".

    > Other consideration as well-
    > - is your management under extreme pressures to reduce IT costs and have in
    > place a 2-3 year plan to consolidate servers, OS instances (where biggest
    > staff costs are hidden) and Data Centers?
    >
    > If yes, one bus app per OS instance platforms may not be the right target
    > environment. There are cultural and technical challenges to be considered
    > which will make it extremely difficult to consolidate at some future point.


    Consolidation is not working *for* VMS but *against* VMS.

    Consolidations works for the platforms where all the software is
    available for.

    The all VMS shop is a rare animal today.

    Arne

  10. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    On May 27, 9:27 am, marlow.and...@googlemail.com wrote:
    > I am considering the cost benefits or otherwise of moving some sw off
    > OpenVMS to Linux. I would like to hear about the pros and cons.
    > Hopefully this will not start a flamewar, I really do want to know!
    >
    > Here, as I see it, are the main issues:
    >
    > OpenVMS does not support the latest version of third party products we
    > use (e.g only Oracle 10g is supported).


    Hey, I'm running OpenVMS V6.2 on MicroVAXes from the 1990s! It can be
    done.

    >
    > Most companies wont train people in VMS even if they use VMS kit. This
    > makes developers shy away (they prefer to know about they platform
    > they work on).


    Well, what say *your* company?!

    >
    > OpenVMS offers better reliability due to clustering.


    Yes.

    >
    > VMS hardware is very reliable.


    It varies.

    >
    > A port away from VMS would be a generic Unix port rather than a port
    > that ties it to Linux. This would enable commercial unix
    > implementations such as Solaris to be used.


    Why is this an advantage?

    >
    > Unix SAs are very thin on the ground these days. At least my client
    > already has the VMS ops people it needs.


    Thin? Take 'em to some fast food joints!

    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Andrew Marlow


    AEF

  11. RE: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Arne Vajh°j [mailto:arne@vajhoej.dk]
    > Sent: May 28, 2008 9:21 AM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons
    >
    > Main, Kerry wrote:
    > >> If you have sufficient customers that want your stuff on *nix
    > >> and will not accept it on VMS, then you need to add *nix as
    > >> supported platform.

    >
    > > You forgot one scenario under the current scenario. Instead of "do

    > nothing",
    > > you could also add
    > > - upgrade current environment to use latest gui mgmt tools which will

    > simplify
    > > the Operational support environment such that any Operator who can

    > handle a mouse
    > > can manage an OpenVMS system.

    >
    > Most customers has more requirements for their platforms than
    > "it can be managed with a mouse".
    >
    > > Other consideration as well-
    > > - is your management under extreme pressures to reduce IT costs and

    > have in
    > > place a 2-3 year plan to consolidate servers, OS instances (where

    > biggest
    > > staff costs are hidden) and Data Centers?
    > >
    > > If yes, one bus app per OS instance platforms may not be the right

    > target
    > > environment. There are cultural and technical challenges to be

    > considered
    > > which will make it extremely difficult to consolidate at some future

    > point.
    >
    > Consolidation is not working *for* VMS but *against* VMS.
    >
    > Consolidations works for the platforms where all the software is
    > available for.
    >
    > The all VMS shop is a rare animal today.
    >
    > Arne


    So is an all Wintel or an all UNIX shop. Reality is that today's world
    is multi-vendor, multi-platform. I am sure there are some examples of
    each today, but there are not many - especially in med-large companies.

    Only exceptions might be Microsoft (only Microsoft products) or Sun (no
    Microsoft products allowed) ..

    :-)

    On your consolidation note - perhaps you can explain to me what the
    Cust CIO response should be to the CEO who says "that's great that
    you have reduced our HW by 20% by implementing VMware, but please
    explain why the number of VM OS's we are supporting grew by 40% and
    our staffing numbers are not going down? Please explain to me how
    you plan to reduce all of these VM's that have sprung up like
    rabbits in the last year .."

    I am not saying they will move to OpenVMS, but the answer to this
    question is going to be extremely difficult to answer when you have
    a "one bus App, one OS" culture in place.


    Regards

    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-254-8911
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.






  12. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    On May 27, 9:27 am, marlow.and...@googlemail.com wrote:
    > I am considering the cost benefits or otherwise of moving some sw off
    > OpenVMS to Linux. I would like to hear about the pros and cons.
    > Hopefully this will not start a flamewar, I really do want to know!
    >
    > Here, as I see it, are the main issues:
    >
    > OpenVMS does not support the latest version of third party products we
    > use (e.g only Oracle 10g is supported).
    >
    > Most companies wont train people in VMS even if they use VMS kit. This
    > makes developers shy away (they prefer to know about they platform
    > they work on).
    >
    > OpenVMS offers better reliability due to clustering.
    >
    > VMS hardware is very reliable.
    >
    > A port away from VMS would be a generic Unix port rather than a port
    > that ties it to Linux. This would enable commercial unix
    > implementations such as Solaris to be used.
    >
    > Unix SAs are very thin on the ground these days. At least my client
    > already has the VMS ops people it needs.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Andrew Marlow


    you forgot the most important point - SECURITY ...

    OpenVMS people really need to get away from the I need
    to be able to buy an app ...

    if you cannot buy it, WRITE IT ...

    has development stopped in the IT world where noone knows
    how to write the apps they need and they are toast if they
    cannot buy it?

    you are also forgetting that you can always buy an app on a
    windoze or other box and link or port it with vms ...you do not
    need to get rid of your reliable and secure backend for some
    front end app ...

  13. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
    > OpenVMS people really need to get away from the I need
    > to be able to buy an app ...
    >
    > if you cannot buy it, WRITE IT ...
    >
    > has development stopped in the IT world where noone knows
    > how to write the apps they need and they are toast if they
    > cannot buy it?


    Hardware has become cheaper, but software development cost
    has went up the roof.

    Requirements for what a system need to do has grown
    a lot.

    In house development is a way too costly option for
    many companies if suitable COTS solutions exist.

    Arne

  14. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    Main, Kerry wrote:
    > From: Arne Vajh°j [mailto:arne@vajhoej.dk]
    >> Main, Kerry wrote:
    >>>> If you have sufficient customers that want your stuff on *nix
    >>>> and will not accept it on VMS, then you need to add *nix as
    >>>> supported platform.
    >>> You forgot one scenario under the current scenario. Instead of "do nothing",
    >>> you could also add
    >>> - upgrade current environment to use latest gui mgmt tools which will simplify
    >>> the Operational support environment such that any Operator who can handle a mouse
    >>> can manage an OpenVMS system.

    >> Most customers has more requirements for their platforms than
    >> "it can be managed with a mouse".
    >>
    >>> Other consideration as well-
    >>> - is your management under extreme pressures to reduce IT costs and have in
    >>> place a 2-3 year plan to consolidate servers, OS instances (where biggest
    >>> staff costs are hidden) and Data Centers?
    >>>
    >>> If yes, one bus app per OS instance platforms may not be the right target
    >>> environment. There are cultural and technical challenges to be considered
    >>> which will make it extremely difficult to consolidate at some future

    >> point.
    >>
    >> Consolidation is not working *for* VMS but *against* VMS.
    >>
    >> Consolidations works for the platforms where all the software is
    >> available for.
    >>
    >> The all VMS shop is a rare animal today.

    >
    > So is an all Wintel or an all UNIX shop. Reality is that today's world
    > is multi-vendor, multi-platform. I am sure there are some examples of
    > each today, but there are not many - especially in med-large companies.
    >
    > Only exceptions might be Microsoft (only Microsoft products) or Sun (no
    > Microsoft products allowed) ..


    Most large companies has a bit of everything.

    But that does not change the fact that when consolidating they
    consolidate on something where all the apps are available.

    And that is very rarely VMS. Most likely Linux or Windows. Possible
    Solaris or AIX.

    > On your consolidation note - perhaps you can explain to me what the
    > Cust CIO response should be to the CEO who says "that's great that
    > you have reduced our HW by 20% by implementing VMware, but please
    > explain why the number of VM OS's we are supporting grew by 40% and
    > our staffing numbers are not going down? Please explain to me how
    > you plan to reduce all of these VM's that have sprung up like
    > rabbits in the last year .."
    >
    > I am not saying they will move to OpenVMS, but the answer to this
    > question is going to be extremely difficult to answer when you have
    > a "one bus App, one OS" culture in place.


    He should reply that the virtualization reduced the HW cost and
    that SW and hour reduction cost will require:
    - reduction of number of platforms (and versions of those)
    - reduction of number of apps

    Arne

  15. Re: OpenVMS and linux, pros and cons

    On Jun 2, 3:14 am, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    > Main, Kerry wrote:
    > > From: Arne Vajh°j [mailto:a...@vajhoej.dk]
    > >> Main, Kerry wrote:
    > >>>> If you have sufficient customers that want your stuff on *nix
    > >>>> and will not accept it on VMS, then you need to add *nix as
    > >>>> supported platform.
    > >>> You forgot one scenario under the current scenario. Instead of "do nothing",
    > >>> you could also add
    > >>> - upgrade current environment to use latest gui mgmt tools which will simplify
    > >>> the Operational support environment such that any Operator who can handle a mouse
    > >>> can manage an OpenVMS system.
    > >> Most customers has more requirements for their platforms than
    > >> "it can be managed with a mouse".

    >
    > >>> Other consideration as well-
    > >>> - is your management under extreme pressures to reduce IT costs and have in
    > >>> place a 2-3 year plan to consolidate servers, OS instances (where biggest
    > >>> staff costs are hidden) and Data Centers?

    >
    > >>> If yes, one bus app per OS instance platforms may not be the right target
    > >>> environment. There are cultural and technical challenges to be considered
    > >>> which will make it extremely difficult to consolidate at some future
    > >> point.

    >
    > >> Consolidation is not working *for* VMS but *against* VMS.

    >
    > >> Consolidations works for the platforms where all the software is
    > >> available for.

    >
    > >> The all VMS shop is a rare animal today.

    >
    > > So is an all Wintel or an all UNIX shop. Reality is that today's world
    > > is multi-vendor, multi-platform. I am sure there are some examples of
    > > each today, but there are not many - especially in med-large companies.

    >
    > > Only exceptions might be Microsoft (only Microsoft products) or Sun (no
    > > Microsoft products allowed) ..

    >
    > Most large companies has a bit of everything.
    >
    > But that does not change the fact that when consolidating they
    > consolidate on something where all the apps are available.
    >
    > And that is very rarely VMS. Most likely Linux or Windows. Possible
    > Solaris or AIX.
    >
    > > On your consolidation note - perhaps you can explain to me what the
    > > Cust CIO response should be to the CEO who says "that's great that
    > > you have reduced our HW by 20% by implementing VMware, but please
    > > explain why the number of VM OS's we are supporting grew by 40% and
    > > our staffing numbers are not going down? Please explain to me how
    > > you plan to reduce all of these VM's that have sprung up like
    > > rabbits in the last year .."

    >
    > > I am not saying they will move to OpenVMS, but the answer to this
    > > question is going to be extremely difficult to answer when you have
    > > a "one bus App, one OS" culture in place.

    >
    > He should reply that the virtualization reduced the HW cost and
    > that SW and hour reduction cost will require:
    > - reduction of number of platforms (and versions of those)
    > - reduction of number of apps
    >
    > Arne


    Ah yes, the "let's do everything on one app/one platform" myth.

    How many businesses have come close to disaster when the SAP (or
    Oracle Apps or whatever, just that SAP is the most visible) salesfolks
    convinced the board, and the reality turned out to be rather different
    than the lunches?

    If it really was sensible and practical to do everything on one
    application family, "enterprise integration" middleware woudn't be as
    trendy as it still is. Not that it's any panacea itself - as a
    contributor here pointed out recently iirc, who needs middleware when
    you've got sockets and a couple of developers who actually have a
    clue.


+ Reply to Thread