nice to see that novell is using their own OS for their web services, how embarrassing lol
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p22/dippy138/novell-web-server.png
idshark,
> nice to see that novell is using their own technologies for their web
> services, how embarrassing
Not embarrassing. It shows Novell chooses the best tools/technologies to
support Novell customers and that Novell chooses to work in harmony with
other technologies to get to that best of breed level. Novell’s motto is
“Making IT work as one” Mixed IT environments are a reality and Novell
isn’t the only one that recognizes and embraces it.
I wasnt trying to start a flame war . But I wouldnt call apache on win32 the ‘best technology’ either , sure mixed environments are normal these days. I just think its strange that instead of using their own OS . That they chose that. You know 
Hi
But it could also be a VM on a linux based server 
–
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
openSUSE 11.0 x86 Kernel 2.6.25.18-0.1-default
up 21:53, 2 users, load average: 0.26, 0.11, 0.07
GPU GeForce 6600 TE/6200 TE - Driver Version: 177.80
idshark,
> I just think its strange that instead of using their own OS . That
> they chose that.
The product used to serve up that site is Knova which requires Apache on
Windows. Knova is the important thing to focus on, not what it runs on.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:46:01 +0000, idshark wrote:
> I wasnt trying to start a flame war . But I wouldnt call apache on win32
> the ‘best technology’ either , sure mixed environments are normal these
> days. I just think its strange that instead of using their own OS . That
> they chose that. You know
It’s a question of applications - sometimes the only option for an
application is one that runs on a platform you’d rather not run.
Novell is a Linux company, but isn’t just a Linux company - they (we -
I work for Novell) also specialize in integration of disparate systems.
It’s good that we use our own products in places and integrate
competitor’s systems, helps us know how well the product works. 
Jim
> It’s a question of applications - sometimes the only option for an
> application is one that runs on a platform you’d rather not run.
Agreed.
> Novell is a Linux company, but isn’t just a Linux company - they (we -
> I work for Novell) also specialize in integration of disparate systems.
> It’s good that we use our own products in places and integrate
> competitor’s systems, helps us know how well the product works.
And over time if alternatives come to exist that run on your platform of
choice then integration and migration again comes into play. In
integrating you also learn the ins and outs of competing products and for
Novell allows it the ability to sell the items it creates for integration
and migration.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:50:24 +0000, GofBorg wrote:
>> It’s a question of applications - sometimes the only option for an
>> application is one that runs on a platform you’d rather not run.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Novell is a Linux company, but isn’t just a Linux company - they (we
>> - I work for Novell) also specialize in integration of disparate
>> systems. It’s good that we use our own products in places and integrate
>> competitor’s systems, helps us know how well the product works.
>
> And over time if alternatives come to exist that run on your platform of
> choice then integration and migration again comes into play. In
> integrating you also learn the ins and outs of competing products and
> for Novell allows it the ability to sell the items it creates for
> integration and migration.
Yes, but from a costing standpoint, it only makes sense to do such a
migration if there is significant benefit to doing so from an
infrastructure standpoint as well. So even if today something were
created that provided feature parity with the solution already in place,
the cost of migration of a production system would have to be analyzed
from a pure cost/benefit analysis in order to determine if that’s the
best way (meaning “most cost effective way”) to learn how to integrate
with the product. Sometimes it’s not when customer-facing systems are
implemented because of the disruption it causes to institute a change.
Stability has value as well, even if the platform is considered “less
than desirable”.
Jim
I can understand the desire to run integrated disparate information systems for best service. But I am not sure that anything that requires Apache on Windows can be considered supportive of best service.
Apache on Linux maybe (although there are better solutions than Apache), and IIS on Windows, also maybe. But Apache on Windows is something I can’t put in the same sentence with “best”. This Knova application really must be something, then. 
$.02
> Yes, but from a costing standpoint, it only makes sense to do such a
> migration if there is significant benefit to doing so from an
> infrastructure standpoint as well. So even if today something were
> created that provided feature parity with the solution already in place,
> the cost of migration of a production system would have to be analyzed
> from a pure cost/benefit analysis in order to determine if that’s the
> best way (meaning “most cost effective way”) to learn how to integrate
> with the product. Sometimes it’s not when customer-facing systems are
> implemented because of the disruption it causes to institute a change.
>
> Stability has value as well, even if the platform is considered “less
> than desirable”.
>
> Jim
Agreed.
> But Apache on Windows is
> something I can’t put in the same sentence with “best”.
Actually I have several sites as well that are Apache on Windows. It’s not
necessarily that Apache on Windows is the best way to run Apache, but for
certain scenarios it makes absolute sense when interfacing with other
systems.
At least it isn’t XAMPP!
Not to knock XAMPP, but that isn’t considered suitable for large-scale deployment (yet).