Monday, July 17, 2006

Why is Unix not good enough for Enterprisenessosity?

Sounds snarky, I know. But I actually do want to ask the question.

It seems to me that one of the things that defines Enterprise code (besides abysmal performance, ridiculous user and administrator interfaces, feature bloat, and resistance to change, haha I can't not say it, my fingers wouldn't let me) is that Not Invented Here Syndrome is very strong. WS-Security exists because WS-People don't think HTTPS is secure enough, even though it's good enough for WS-Designers to do their internet banking with. WS-Transfer exists because WS-Designers forgot the WS-Standards are realized as SOAP over HTTP. Lots of products use databases when as Mr Bray so rightly puts it ext3 or ReiserFS or UFS or ZFS would do just fine.

So what is it about Unix that the Enterprise doesn't like? It seems like most are happy with its ability to act as infrastructure, in the sense that it can run a JVM and/or a .Net CLR, but don't want to use any of the higher-level services like secure, distributed filesystems it provides. Is it a familiarity thing? Are people coming out of Enterprise Architecture School -- whatever that means -- just not familiar with the capabilities of the world's best server OS? Are we just paying lip service to reusability, writing our 'general' components, all the while not acknowledging that the most general component of all has already built this stuff, and it's been in production for twenty years?


Post a Comment

<< Home