Re: MIDRANGE-L Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1529

> message: 5
> date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:55:16 -0500
> from: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> subject: RE: MIDRANGE-L Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1528
> 
> > From: Joel Cochran
> > 
> > The beauty is that we had 5 people doing the same thing on that box,
> an
> > old ratty PIII 550 with 32mb of Ram.  If we wanted something installed
> > we just did it once, like James is saying: maintenance is a snap.  We
> > plan to have the entire DP staff doing this in the next few months.
> 
> I am NOT trying to start a flamewar here, so mount /dev/null for that
> stuff <grin>.  What I do want to address, though, is the browser issue.
> And I guess the Windows/Linux issue as well.  Together, this might even
> be enough for a column, should I have time to write one.

Ahhh, the browser issue.  As a fellow web developer I know it well.  In
all honesty I'm totally sick of dealing with the Netscape/IE issue,
which of course is now the AOL-kills-Netscape-turned-Mozilla/IE issue,
so I've actually changed my design theories and methods so that the
browser doesn't matter.  I talk about it very briefly here:
http://www.rpgnext.com/aboutsite.php

I got to learn a bunch of new stuff and my site works regardless of the
browser.  Granted, it is not fancy and does not do any real business
work, but so far it has been a rewarding experience.  And for what it's
worth I use the Firebird implementation of Mozilla (formerly known as
Pheonix) because I think Konqueror is a horrid browser.

> Anyway, first off, why (for pure business reasons) switch to Linux
> desktops?  Hardware costs?  Software costs?  What?  ("Bill Gates is the
> Antichrist" is not an acceptable reason.)

Gates isn't the Anti-christ, but Beelzebub calls him to fill in when he
goes on vacation... :-P

OK OK ... if you read my original post again here is what I was trying
to say: I have a Linux desktop and so does my network admin.  I did this
so that I can learn to swim by jumping out of the boat.  Our DP staff
members have XP desktops that we bought last year because we had to
upgrade from Win98 for Network issues (before our Linux sojourn).  What
we are implementing now, via Cygwin, is having them connect to 1 Linux
server.  That Linux server then houses all the necessary software: 1 box
to configure, maintain, service, and backup.  1 change becomes instant
for all, if desired, just like on a 400.  For example: You want to mount
a network drive for everyone in your office?  One command.  Oh, and no
stinkin' drive letters either.  A pretty good business reason, I think.

They can stay on their XP boxes forever, as far as we're concerned, we
don't plan on installing Linux desktops for them until the machines die,
which brings us to another business decision: no need to upgrade
everytime Redmond says we should.  No exhorbitant license fees.  No fear
of audit.  No fear of software that used to run fine no longer working
because of something MS did.  No continual "There is a critical update!
Install now" messages everytime you login.  And, even if a box breaks,
you can simply go to another one and login via Cygwin and you'd never
know the difference: practically no down time.  Again, all pretty good
business reasons.

> Second, IE is still functionally different from Mozilla as far as the
> DOM is concerned (for example, changing events).  Is it a sound business
> idea to lock into a browser architecture that is different than some 94%
> of the world?

I read a great article at http://www.sitepoint.com a couple of months
ago that discusses the fact that IE6 is now one of the most out of date
browsers in the market, not to mention bloated and proprietary.  Worse
than tha, because of their very dominance MS is not motivated to keep it
updated.  Therefore, is it a wise business decision to lock yourself
into a browser your applications can't grow with?  Or is it a better
decision to find alternative solutions and conform with a growing
international standard?

> Note: the differences between Mozilla and IE only show up in advanced
> JSP techniques, but those are starting to creep into our applications.
> Neat things like DHTML are becoming more prevalent, and without a robust
> DOM implementation, there are things you can't do.  So does it make
> business sense to move to Linux and basically remove those capabilities
> from your users and your applications?

Hmmm.  I can honestly say that I don't think I've lost anything except
from IBM: I can't run OpsNav and I can't run WDSc (even though it is
Eclipse based - but I digress...), at least not natively.  The DOM seems
to work fine in Firebird and Mozilla, and now I'm talking based on
testing our heavily scripted RPG-CGI site, http://www.vamanet.com.  If
there are differences then they are problems I haven't had to deal with.

DHTML has been out for years and I think we are actually starting to see
a trend where sites are becoming less and less dependent on graphics and
nifty tricks.  I don't think it's becoming prevelant, mostly because it
isn't a real standard, just a way of using scripting techniques, which
aren't standard either.  That's why I'm embracing XHTML and CSS, at
least there is someone minding the shop.  

Obviously the browser is far more important to you than it is to me by
the nature of our endeavours. I'm not really a zealot and it won't hurt
my feelings a bit if you disagree or wouldn't have done the same thing. 
In fact, I think it's great that we are even having this discussion,
because two years ago I don't think it would have been legit: now Linux
has come far enough that people are really starting to look at it and
say "Oh, there IS something better!"  I'm certainly not saying you
should decide one way or the other, just answering some points. 
Ultimately, like always, your business decisions are based on different
things than mine.  

Joel
http://www.rpgnext.com