Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Giles Coochey <giles at coochey.net> wrote: >>> >>> But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you >>> should only be allowed to use languages that work across CPU types and >>> OS's so as to never be locked into a monopolistic single vendor. >>> >> So if I were to develop a CPU type and/or OS that didn't support Java >> then you would lock yourself out of the very language you appear to >> advocate? > > Being locked out of some oddball thing is not at all the same > situation as being locked into what only a single vendor provides. But > try something like 'jenkins' (http://jenkins-ci.org/) with an > assortment of cross-platform nodes to get the idea of how handy a > language with remoting across many platforms can be. It's painless to > install try, even if you only use it on a single box. I have a one-word answer: perl. A longer answer - are you suggesting system admin chores being done using some kind of java monstrosity? I mean, I don't remember what Spacewalk's written in, but it was a very large pain, and if it's not in java, then the java version would be a *lot* worse..... mark