Brenda: As Tony G. would say, MV can do most anything. However, your company management has to do what they must. Since most management don't know IT they trust others to make appropriate recommendations. Unfortunately, as with most else in life, if one doesn't know anything about IT how is one supposed to know if those they trust know anything about IT? :-)
Let me address your points: 1) U2 runs fine on Windows. The main differences are with the O/S functionality embedded within the application; as most other things can be re-factored. 2) If it's true that MV is only about 1% of your applications and business processes then one could simply pick up the servers and MV infrastructure and throw it all out into the dumpster without much effect, leaving everything else to simply cope. 3) Linux is one of the finest server O/S platforms known and will fit seamlessly into your network, but not by your Windows administrators and developers. You'll need expertise to accomplish this. 4) Generally speaking, one can easily use telnet to connect to U2 on Windows by using a VPN or by some other SSH software. Port#s can be changed to hide the traffic and SSH/VPN can be used to encrypt the traffic. All this is easily doable. I have a simple demo where an icon on my desktop is double-clicked and a connection to a UD server is made via an SSH tunnel to a separate server, then a telnet through that tunnel to the destination U2 server. 5) All costs are basically comparable between U2 on Linux vs U2 on Windows. Linux is cheaper if you have Linux experienced staff and Windows is cheaper if you have Windows experienced staff. Telnet between two machines within a secure network isn't really a problem as no one can either see or mess with the connection. For instance you can make a VPN connection to a VPN appliance then allow that appliance to forward telnet inside the network to the U2 server. This is simple and quite secure and would comply with any 3rd party requirement. I'd bet any consultant on this list could manage all of the above for you. Regarding the costs of SQL Server vs U2. It will become clear to you that the up-front licensing costs of U2 are significantly greater than SQL Server (and DB2). Ongoing support and maintenance costs are significantly less on U2, but usually this is offset, to one degree or another, by the need for most new development to include OO techniques and infrastructure. In our application, which includes UD/.NET/LAMP, .NET development, maintenance, and support is an order of magnitude higher. The more one puts into U2 the better, and cheaper, it is for support and maintenance. If, on the other hand, your U2 system and processes make up much more than 1% of your business IT, which can easily be imagined because SQL and OO infrastructure is bloated beyond belief, then realize you can pretty much do anything with MV. It is a far, far, far better platform for transaction processing than anything else you can imagine. HTH, Bill >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brenda Price >Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 7:10 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [U2] converting from UniVerse on Redhat Linux to UniVerse on Windows > >There is a discussion here to either do completely away from UniVerse to >SQL because 99% of our servers are windows applications and our network >administrator doesn't know much about Linux and believes because we have >to open up telnet for UniVerse and an old application on a Solaris box >of Mumps that we are making the Linux less secure and that PCI requires >we don't use telnet at all. We use SSH to login everywhere except for >the communication between UniVerse and Mumps. > > > >As a stop gap the company may switch from Linux to Windows. I thought I >remembered a discussion on this sometime in the last couple of years. >I'll search the archives. In the meantime, has anyone have an >experience with this? If so, did the costs stay the same, go up, go >down. Any difficulties? Seems like it would be the same procedures as >we had to run when we was transferring data from our live server (linux) >to our old test server (Solaris), you had to do funxi on the data and >that was that. > > > >They are in the process of getting comparison costs between UniVerse and >SQL now. For those with both UniVerse and SQL experience, how does the >development time differ. To me it appears that it takes the VB and SQL >folks longer to get changes done then it does on the UniVerse systems. >If we switch, it seems to me that the quick fixes users demands will be >pretty much going away. Am I correct on this? I am 99.9% certain that >the switch will happen at some point in the next few years. > > > >Brenda Price > >Affiliated Acceptance Corporation > >Sunrise Beach, MO 65079 >------- >u2-users mailing list >[email protected] >To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
