@The comment on MIS/FIS my uncle is one of the developers for that software. I have been trying to evangelize linux to him for several years now. Sadly I can't seem to get him to take the plunge. That new software BTW is based around FoxBase and the old stuff was based around DBase III or IV, IIRC.
On 2/18/06, Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 23:02 -0700, Merrill Oveson wrote: > > The LDS Church! > > I told Eric Deena in 2002 that the church should install Linux for all > > its units (wards and branches). > > I told him it could save billions in software costs, he said "Well billions, > > probably not, but millions, ok." > > I beg to differ with that sentiment. In 2002, and even at this very > moment I think that switching all the units to linux might save money up > front, but cost more in the long run. Maybe I can organize a few > coherent thoughts below. > > > (All the clerks need is openOffice, the rest is custom programmed from the > > church MIS/FIS.) > > At which point, I stared at him blankly, as if to say, "Ok, then let's save > > millions." > > Maybe that day is soon at hand. > > I can think of several advantages that Linux would have for the church > in this situation: > - Lower up-front-cost > - Ability to easily remote-administer. One admin could potentially > administer 1000 linux boxes easily. > - Less worry about viruses and worms > > I can also think of several disadvantages: > - Not every unit is networked. Many are dial-up. This pretty much > eliminates any chance of remote administration > - They'd need to hire quite a few linux admins. > - Because of the fact that units aren't always on-line, the church > would need to really have local linux experts on tap. While I'm sure > there are many here in Provo, it gets a little more sparse the farther > out you get. Whereas pretty much every ward clerk's son can probably > re-install or fix windows (I use the term "fix" extremely loosely). So > while windows know-how is arguably lower-quality, it is available in > much higher quantities. Since this is the church we're talking about, > labor is essentially free out in the units. > > > > > On another note.... > > Some time back when I was the financial clerk and the new FIS software was > > about to be released.... > > I sent in an email requesting that the new software be based around an > > RDBMS, i.e. mysql or postgres and that default port be changed. > > Then those who understood sql could get a prompt on the new port and query > > the database themselves without having to rely on the front-end reports. > > I think the data is considered a little too sensitive (confidential) to > give you this kind of thing. > > > Those who didn't understand the port or sql wouldn't have a clue as to what > > this meant so they couldn't go in anyway. > > Lastly, the database user would only be given read privs. > > With the old system too many times I had to count by hand in order to give > > the bishop the information he wanted. > > Wasn't the old MIS and FIS systems actually based on a relational > database engine? I can't remember the name of the engine but it was > very popular at the time. And people did write programs that could > access the database directly. I remember seeing programs that could > quickly print ward lists and things. > > > > > Alas, I was released before I ever got to see the new system. As I > > understand it, it is not based on an RDBMS. correct? > > I'm sure there's a relational database engine under the hood. > > The whole system is written in Java. The user interface is, well, > interesting. Certainly different. It grows on you I suppose. They > made some very interesting UI decisions and use a tabbed-display. > > > > > One vision of mine is that the unit systems would be one that functioned > > like an information appliance based on linux. The church would set up the > > entire computer then ship it to the units, at this point the unit would > > merely need to plug it in. > > This is a good idea, except that you'll run into problems trying to ship > these things around the globe. It's hard enough to get a simple letter > through the post intact to some countries where branches exist. A > computer would be difficult. I guess fedex does go everywhere these > days, if the movies are to be trusted. But I'm sure in some countries > even Fedex would have problems keeping a computer from getting stolen. > > The customs problems remain. Even carrying a computer to these far- > flung units would be difficult. Some countries charge 100% duty on > things like computers and they don't do it according to the price you > claim you paid for it; they make up a number based on what they think it > might be worth in their country, or on how much money they think they > can take from you. > > Because of the potential problems with regards to customs and tax > regimes, monies collected as offerings or tithes typically stay in the > country they were collected (except for the US of course). For example, > all Canadian tithes and offerings go to what the government considers a > Canadian church. > > > > > Another vision, is one where the computers don't store any information on > > the unit computer but instead rely on the church's central computers and > > communicate via a super secure internet connection. Possible? > > Sure it is possible. In the developing world? Probably even there. > But it will be a very slow and gradual thing for the church. > > > (So many times, I had to mail letters all across the globe to people who had > > changed wards, which letters contained all monetary contributions made by > > that individual while in our ward. As if I wasn't busy enough! When I was > > released I had forgotten what it was like to attend sunday school and > > priesthood. And it was nice to be able to go home after church and enjoy > > the holidays. The clerks now say things are much much better!) > 1. > > thoughts?? > > Michael > > > > > > > On 2/17/06, Bryan Sant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 2/17/06, Doran L. Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > All in all, this is a major landmark accomplishment and I applaud the > > > > company. Who is the company? > > > > > > The LDS Church -> FCH Division -> Engineering Department. About 110 > > > engineers. > > > > > > > I'm curious why the company chose SUSE over other distributions. How > > > much > > > > control will the IT team have over what is installed on these systems > > > and > > > > whether or not software updates are applied? > > > > > > The Church has always been friendly to Novell and IBM. IBM and Novell > > > have a psudo partnership with Linux. Choosing SLES was the natural > > > choice (this was done before I even worked here). Since we're using > > > SLES, we might as well use SUSE right? And the rest is history. > > > Aside from that though, SUSE/SLES has serious local corporate support > > > -- and big organizations (the LDS Church is the largest employer in > > > Utah) like that. > > > > > > Like many here, I cut my teeth on Redhat. So it's hard for me to see > > > SLES as anything other than Redhat done wrong. Seriously though, I > > > have major complaints with SLES out of the box (I'll save that for > > > another post). > > > > > > > I'm sure the decision to do it this way is rooted in IT management - > > > people > > > > who don't want to deal with managing a diversified heterogeneous > > > network. In > > > > the past, whenever I've wanted to run Linux on my desktop at a company, > > > the > > > > IT people have always been quick to say, "Do what you want... but don't > > > > expect any support from us!" > > > > > > Typically IT management comes to me when they have problems with > > > Linux, so I'm not worried about them saying, "We won't support your > > > setup". OK. If they *did*, that would be infinite recursion... We'd > > > run out of stack space and the universe would segfault :-). > > > > > > > Again, I think it all comes back to resource management. The IT > > > department > > > > probably does not want the responsibility of maintaining lots of > > > different > > > > machines running different operating systems. > > > > > > This is true, but they've been supporting Windows thus far anyway. > > > You are right toughy -- It will reduce complexity (and thus cost) to > > > focus on Linux only. > > > > > > > This is precisely why most Linux vendors are excited about the corporate > > > > desktop. For what _most_ people do, Linux works well and it's definitely > > > > easier to manage from an IT perspective. > > > > > > Right. Just for the curious, the major components in our world are: > > > GroupWise, IntelliJ, CVS, and OOo. Because these things work equally > > > well on Windows and Linux, the transition was super easy. I pitty > > > those who are moving away from more entrenched environments. > > > > > > -Bryan > > > > > > /* > > > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > > > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > > > Don't fear the penguin. > > > */ > > > > > > > /* > > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > > Don't fear the penguin. > > */ > > > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
