> > 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.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.