|
> > Except that its a "PC". And probably the "NT guy" is looking after it. > >If you're worried about ownership, step up and take ownership yourself. >Describe it as a peripheral for the AS/400, and say you'll tkae care of it. >It's not that hard, and you'll be personally responsible for saving the >company money. Agreed absolutely. Ownership is the key in my view. > > Because you are giving away control of a piece of the business and IT that > > you shouldn't give away. Before long the PC guy or the web guy is in with > > the marketing manager or the CEO telling them how if they added IIS, > > Apache, Perl, PHP, Zope or whatever turns his particular wheel that they > > could serve dynamic data such as up-to-date price lists instead of just > > static pages. > >This is a political discussion rather than a technical one. Evidently >you've had bad experiences with "PC guys" in the past, so you want >everything on your AS/400 where you have control. Obviously, there can be >no technical argument against that position. Agreed PC guys in my experience tend not to be "professional", but I'm probably old and bigoted :). Windows is not a technical choice, it is a philosophical choice. In many cases, although it need not be so, Unix is too. It's not so much a case of having control as of feeling comfortable when I make promises. There is also an issue that the less PCs you have (ignoring desktops) the less high end skills you need. There are some economic choices in how good a PC guy you need to support a server versus desktops. > > By and large I don't disagree with what you say Joe, in particular how > > difficult the economics are to justify, but I see this as retaining a > > strategic service. It is far easier to start configuring your AS/400 HTTP > > server and the other bits and pieces using static pages to understand how > > to do web serving, than it is to argue the case for JSP's or websphere or > > whatever once the webserving is being done from the little box in the > > corner (or however many the NT guys has managed to grow it into. > >Web serving can be done - indeed often SHOULD be done - from more than one >platform within your organization. But since you believe backing up a >single PC is beyond the capabilities of your IT staff, I doubt that >supporting a second HTTP server is going to fly. > > > > Evan Don't-give-it-away-coz-you-won't-get-it-back Harris > >This being your position, no technical argument can have merit and will >simply further clog the bandwidth. I shall cease and desist. Fair enough Joe, but initially you argued that it shouldn't be done from a security/data separation point of view (which I believe is a flawed argument) then you made it an economic argument, which has a great deal more validity, even though it is not a "technical argument" and somewhat dependent on how you see things. I would guess from your comments regarding ownership and doing it myself (which is exactly what I was arguing - platform is less relevent in this sense) that essentially we agree anyway. I want to own the architecture and delivery (and the budget !) - the how is not so important. Regards Evan Harris
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.