and I would suspect that many ISV's would love to have their
customers on the latest release - but that just isn't the case.
I completely understand the need for ISVs to make money. However, even
so there should be some pressure on customers to upgrade to the latest
i5/OS release.
I've had discussion internally more than once - our sales want to sell
software, our developers don't want to support older releases, and I
don't want to put out fires on a V3R7 system where it takes me a good
hour just to get the appropriate manuals (and then days to get
replacement parts of ebay and similar outlets).
Customers need to be pushed. They're doing the wrong thing - not because
they're incompetent, but because they lack the necessary information in
order to make a proper decision. There _IS_ a valid Business need to be
on the latest stable OS release, and to regularly apply cumulative PTFs.
However, it takes time to tell this to customers as a technician or
developer - this needs to be handled by the sales team too.
What I see as a major problem: While customers usually have a stable
machine that is working reliably since the dawn of time, my perspective
is completely different. I usually see one or two failed systems per
month - this doesn't mean that the System i is unreliable or anything
like that, just that my focus of work centers around "not working
machines".
If Microsoft had been writing Enterprise Servers in the 70's on their
own hardware then I would guess we would be seeing A LOT of Microsoft
servers still running Windows95 - but that just isn't the case.
When I first read this, my reaction was "Bullshit", but you're actually
right.
I still see some infrastructure running on NT4 machines, but never
important business applications.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of albartell
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:29 PM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: New redpaper: i5/OS Program Conversion: Getting readyfor
i5/OSV6R1
One of the larger problems here is that ISVs still support outdated
releases. If ISVs would act reasonably and stop supporting older
versions of
the software running on unsupported operating systems, less problems
would
be had.
Lukas, with all due respect (which I respect you a lot), until you sell
custom software on the i5 I don't think you can truly know how
beneficial
(in money and number of customers) compiling to previous releases is.
As I
understand it you get paid to put in brand new boxes so your stance
makes
complete sense and I would suspect that many ISV's would love to have
their
customers on the latest release - but that just isn't the case.
This is exactly how it works on other platforms - and those don't have
8
year old servers running critical business infrastructure.
There weren't a lot of Wintel servers in the past that could run
critical
business infrastructure applications. Microsoft is just getting into
the
"Enterprise Server" space in the past 5 years or so. I don't think it
is
correct to make the comparison you did because it doesn't realize the
players and how long they have been around and how refined the
OS/Hardware
is. If Microsoft had been writing Enterprise Servers in the 70's on
their
own hardware then I would guess we would be seeing A LOT of Microsoft
servers still running Windows95 - but that just isn't the case.
Thoughts?
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukas Beeler
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:04 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: New redpaper: i5/OS Program Conversion: Getting readyfor
i5/OSV6R1
Business Applications and Infrastructure are equally important.
Neither works without the other. A company without working Active
Directory
means that almost nothing will work. Same probably if the ERP system is
down.
People still running Windows 2000 are stupid (or have an extended Hotfix
Agreement). But at least Microsoft is still providing Security updates
for
Windows 2000 - not so for older OS/400 releases.
Running a release that is no longer supported is grossly negligent.
One of the larger problems here is that ISVs still support outdated
releases. If ISVs would act reasonably and stop supporting older
versions of
the software running on unsupported operating systems, less problems
would
be had. Of course there's always the exception if you pay big money for
extended maintenance contracts.
This is exactly how it works on other platforms - and those don't have 8
year old servers running critical business infrastructure.
midrange.com
