[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Are you guys at work right now? LOL
My boss would kick my a** if I was replying to mailing lists all day
long. But, you guys are probably C-level -- executive perk number 246?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:32 AM
> To: 'Rich Salz'
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Managing Innovation
>
>
> From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com]
>
> > Many Unix experts sitting here dispute that.
> > They tell me Unix is the most easily hacked operating
> > system they've ever worked with.
>
> >With all due respect, Len, I do not believe this. Unless
> perhaps your
> >experts are conflating a basic Unix system with something running
> >turn-key applications. Unless you're able to provide more
> information
> >(and I could well believe you can't), we'll just have to leave this
> >point in open disagreement.
>
> That is what Spy Vs Spy means: opinion vs opinion. But
> you can take my word for it that the sources are people with
> years of experience with Unix and VAX/VMS before that. They
> say it is all about security maintenance and they don't have
> problems securing our local systems unless a local owner
> doesn't do the right things. In that case, his droid is
> disconnected from the network until he cleans up his act.
> What we are experiencing is that MS product security is
> increasing rapidly and steadily. That this is a new
> phenomenon is undeniable, but it is real.
>
> >As for the fading dominance of Unix, etc., it's all
> relative. You may
> >sell big systems, but with revenues around a half-billion,
> your 100-1
> >ratio is a drop in the bucket. (BTW, I had to use Google to
> find those
> >numbers; using Search on www.ingr.com gets back "index is
> corrupt"; I
> >know your front-end claims to be IIS/4.0, so it's probably safe to
> >assume the back-end is SQLServer. I hope those SQL worms
> didn't get to
> it.)
>
> Sometimes it isn't the revenue, but the kinds of systems. We sell
> production systems to very serious people. BTW: we are
> verticalized,
> so customers vary by division. We are not a hardware vendor and
> we don't develop core technology these days (no profit in that).
> We implement over the Microsoft platform. Since shifting away from
> Unix, homegrown platforms, and knowledge intensive tools, we have
> become profitable and sustained that. It makes good sense. We
> innovate in the application domain, not the operating system layer.
>
> A standards-based service architecture should not have to be
> distinguished by the source of the backend systems. The key
> to competing is to recognize the migration to the services
> architecture just below the application layer.
>
> >Is there anyone on this list who can say with a straight face that
> >Unix-like operating systems are not an important part of the
> computing
> >industry? Not biggest, not smallest, just important.
>
> No. Just that my market doesn't consider it important and we
> don't try to influence that perception one way or another. It
> is stated in the RFPs.
>
> len
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
|
