|
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Whether or not using new technologies is more cost effective to you is often based on what you wanted, (or your comfort zone) in the first place. If you want to use the new features, then it is more cost effective, stable, etc. If you don't want to use the new features, then the old methods are more cost effective, stable, etc. Much as IBM is touting this new white paper out about how great the TCO of Linux is. Pretty amazing that they based against some of their competitors but left out 400's and 390's. Rob Berendt -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin Jan Megannon <jmegannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx 04/02/2003 06:09 PM Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> cc: Fax to: Subject: Re: MIDRANGE-L Digest, Vol 2, Issue 479 E Doc wrote: >You are the exception, Buck. I would say 90-95% of the people I meet in >various AS/400 shops are scared of: > >C >C++ >Java >UNIX >Linux >Perl >Python >ILE >Monsters under the bed > >-Doc > >__________________________________________________ > > Doc, In some ways I agree with you and in others not. Many of those who are in favour of the various combinations of languages/platforms/environments may be developers/tech-heads. Not to say that all of them are that way inclined! Many of the customers I interact with are concerned about things such as: Once these technologies are implemented, how easy is it to employ/contract a skill to support it? Considering the speed of change in technology, will I in 12 to 24 months be able to get a skill that can support the mutation of languages in which the solution was developed? From a developer's perspective it is great to be able to provide solutions as the customers want it, with the employer providing us the opportunity to employ or prove our skills within the various languages. These employers are getting tired of paying for our toys. They want solutions that provide: functionality, simplicity ease of use maintainability allow them to provide all of the above by employing a maximum of two people during the life-cycle of the app (in the case of small shops with in-house developers!) It can be said these companies often stay behind in terms of the advancement of technology, but that is a relative statement.To use an example (albeit a lousy one!), how many users that you know use the enhanced functionality within EXCEL in Office 2000 over that in Office 95? Does this equate to 10% Probably not. The only thing that faster systems has provided some customers is that they can now mess up at 70CPW instead of at 25 CPW!!!! Until such a time as we start providing them with what they want, when they want it at the cost they want it (which is always for free :-) ), they will be more and more loathe to throw funds our way. The perception within many companies (locally, as I cannot vouch for you guys) is that I.T. is a Cost Centre and not a Profit Centre. Once we can start providing them with solutions and not just solutions with constant upgrades in terms of techonology (h/w and s/w), they may start adopting a more positive attitude towards us! Hey, I may be wrong> What are the opinions out there? Jan. _______________________________________________ This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.