On 07/08/2014 01:11 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Lamar Owen wrote: >> On 07/08/2014 11:58 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: >>> ... How much is this going to cost a typical company _just_ to keep >>> their existing programs working the same way over the next decade >>> (which is a relatively short time in terms of business-process changes)? >> Les, this is the wrong question to ask. The question I ask is 'What >> will be my return on investment be, in potentially lower costs, to run >> my programs in a different way?' If there is no ROI, or a really long > No, it's *not* the wrong question. Are you going to figure ROI INCLUDING > all the a) reworking, b) retraining (oh, that's right, almost *no* one > pays for training, other than on-the-jop or take your own lunch brown > bags) in the costs? And how 'bout how long it's going to recoup those > up-front costs (or where you planning on hiring all new people anyway?), > and will there be *another* change coming along in five years...? > >> ROI, well, I still have C6 to run until 2020 while I invest the time in >> determining if a new way is better or not. Fact is that all of the >> major Linux distributions are going this way; do you really think all of >> them would change if this change were stupid? > May I point to upstart, and that it lasted a few years, before folks > decided it was a Bad Idea? How many years of systemd do we have to compare > and contrast? Unfortunately the way systemd has intertwined itself into to so much more that just system startup, it could be around for a long time. >>> Even if the changes themselves are minor, you have to cover the cost >>> of paying some number of people for that 'get used to the syntax' >>> step. Personally I think Red Hat did everyone a disservice by >>> splitting the development side off to fedora and divorcing it from the >>> enterprise users that like the consistency. > YES!!!!!!!!! Let fedora duke it out with ubuntu; give us a *work* o/s. >> Consistency is not the only goal. Efficiency should trump consistency, > Wrong. I *STRONGLY* disagree. Efficiency should be a goal off consistency, > and consistency should not be highly inefficient. However, as I've > mentioned before, when I go home after a hard day administering a > hundred-plus-many servers and workstations to my own workstation at home, > I do *NOT* want to debug my o/s. (And I'm putting off trying to upgrade my > router's DD-WRT, in the hope that I'll find something less buggy with USB > printer support). > <snip> > > mark > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com