On 07/08/2014 01:11 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On 07/08/2014 11:58 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> ... How much is this going to cost a typical company _just_ to keep
>>> their existing programs working the same way over the next decade
>>> (which is a relatively short time in terms of business-process changes)?
>> Les, this is the wrong question to ask. The question I ask is 'What
>> will be my return on investment be, in potentially lower costs, to run
>> my programs in a different way?' If there is no ROI, or a really long
> No, it's *not* the wrong question. Are you going to figure ROI INCLUDING
> all the a) reworking, b) retraining (oh, that's right, almost *no* one
> pays for training, other than on-the-jop or take your own lunch brown
> bags) in the costs? And how 'bout how long it's going to recoup those
> up-front costs (or where you planning on hiring all new people anyway?),
> and will there be *another* change coming along in five years...?
>
>> ROI, well, I still have C6 to run until 2020 while I invest the time in
>> determining if a new way is better or not. Fact is that all of the
>> major Linux distributions are going this way; do you really think all of
>> them would change if this change were stupid?
> May I point to upstart, and that it lasted a few years, before folks
> decided it was a Bad Idea? How many years of systemd do we have to compare
> and contrast?
Unfortunately the way systemd has intertwined itself into to so much more that just
system startup, it could be around for a long time.
>>> Even if the changes themselves are minor, you have to cover the cost
>>> of paying some number of people for that 'get used to the syntax'
>>> step. Personally I think Red Hat did everyone a disservice by
>>> splitting the development side off to fedora and divorcing it from the
>>> enterprise users that like the consistency.
> YES!!!!!!!!! Let fedora duke it out with ubuntu; give us a *work* o/s.
>> Consistency is not the only goal. Efficiency should trump consistency,
> Wrong. I *STRONGLY* disagree. Efficiency should be a goal off consistency,
> and consistency should not be highly inefficient. However, as I've
> mentioned before, when I go home after a hard day administering a
> hundred-plus-many servers and workstations to my own workstation at home,
> I do *NOT* want to debug my o/s. (And I'm putting off trying to upgrade my
> router's DD-WRT, in the hope that I'll find something less buggy with USB
> printer support).
> <snip>
>
> mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netwolves.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
