Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote: >> The issue is not an attempt to re-architect. It's 4 (ION, >> IOS-XR, NS-OS, IOS XE), on platforms with partially overlap- >> ping coverage. > > IMO there's a pretty big difference between building software > for a pure core, for a data center with lots of L2 and SAN, and > 'IOS with *all* the features, reworked'.
I disagree. > > Would it be great to have a single OS for all of it? Well, then > you'd only have to learn one, obviously, but it sure wouldn't be I am not concerned about how many I have to learn. I am concerned about how many Cisco have to maintain, and the internal forces that having multiple choices will create. > good for 'time to market' (feature velocity)... and you'd still > have all the hardware differences. There are plenty of large software suites that run on multiple hardware platforms, but without anything like the divergence that IOS and successors suffer from. Still, I don't see the point in discussing it further - if you like having different IOSes, then I'm glad for you and things are fine from your point of view. I'm sure many are happy with it as well. However, from the responses to this thread, I'm not alone in my opinion either. > > -A > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
