Been watching this from a distance (trying not to debate as much these days
There are so many variables to this debate that it's almost fruitless to
attempt to have a blanket statement that covers most shops and what they
should or shouldn't do. For example, I used to be in the camp of "no
Microsoft, ever, if you have an IBM i". That's fine and good to cheer the
choir, but if you miss a business deadline, well, you get to answer to the
President/CEO/shareholders. A business might have more strengths in
Microsoft than Java. In that case it I would lean towards keeping things
in Microsoft even if they could run Java on IBM i. Why? Because if you
don't have a Java coder on staff then that bit of Java code is never
wanting to be touched by anyone.
The only thing I resolve to now is: What can meet the short-term deadlines
and has a decent long-term chance. That leaves a lot of doors open. It
also introduces realities like "sure you can implement the
less-than-optimal technology, but make sure to budget time/money for the
removal of it for the long-term". Planning technology for a company isn't
simple, but it also is surmountable if you subscribe to the idea, and live
in the reality of, technology changing a lot from decade to decade.
FWIW, IMHO, Microsoft is playing their cards quite well by allowing their
for-sale products to run on Linux.
IBM i hosting, starting at $157/month. litmis.com/spaces
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Justin Taylor <JUSTIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
" Should every company strive to run 100% of everything on IBM i? As
awesome as that sounds it's likely just not a workable option. But it's
also very shortsighted to willy nilly just throw up another server with
some freeware bits and a database connection. In the end that thing needs
to be maintained, documented, and dealt with in recovery and HA situations.
Likely a little more research to select a solution running on an existing
platform pays off in the long run."
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.