Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by jordan (120) on 2003.04.23 11:47 (#19379) Homepage Journal

    Don't take the CIO at his word here. Note that Southwest Airlines, which has a similar business model to Jet Blue, and has been doing it a hell of a lot longer, has always turned a profit also. I have no idea what Southwest uses in their IT department.

    The CIO has to say something good about his decision to standardize on MS, right? It was his decision, after all.

    The fact that so much of the Web is run by Unix/Apache, so many palmtops are Palm OS, so many corporate databases are Oracle says something about economies of scale to be had with non-MS products.

    Anyone thinking long term will realize that if you completely standardize on one vendor, that one vendor could double their price to you tomorrow and you'd have to pay it. Anyone following MS pricing, which goes up in a recession, realizes what can happen.

    You can standardize on MS clients, Unix or IBM Mainframes in the back office and Palm on the palmtops and have similar cost savings. After all, you really wouldn't want the same people supporting clients, big databases and palmtops anyway, so you might as well put the best product in where it makes sense.

    There is some argument for interoperability, but be careful not to overstate the advantages. Further, with one vendor everywhere, you are in an inflexible position if you find an important technology becomes available and your vendor isn't doing it yet, or well. Think about having standardized on MS in 1995 and suddenly finding out you needed a Web presence.

    • The CIO has to say something good about his decision to standardize on MS, right? It was his decision, after all.

      Yes, and it appears that he made a sound business decision, based on a handful of objective metrics that impact the bottom line. He's bucking the common wisdom that (1) you need multiple platforms to run an enterprise and (2) an all Microsoft shop is a solution for managers who don't know any better. These were conscious decisions he took for JetBlue, and interestingly enough, it seems to

        • Yes, and it appears that he made a sound business decision, based on a handful of objective metrics that impact the bottom line.

        Appearances can be deceptive. This article is not exactly bristling with objective metrics.

        This CIO chose Office 2003 over XP for its XML support. XML support that is mostly a marketing checkoff as, by all accounts, it lacks interoperability and formatting information. Sounds like he's got a One Microsoft Way story to tell and he's pushing it for all it's worth.

        • He's bucking
        • Appearances can be deceptive. This article is not exactly bristling with objective metrics.

          I'll grant that this article is hardly brimming with real information. Yet I still find myself intrigued with the idea that eliminating non-MS platforms from an enterprise could possibly reduce overall IT costs. Specifically, that the same economic factors that aid jetBlue and Southwest to save money by standardizing on a single model of aircraft may also be a factor in IT.

          If Linux/Apache delivers better p