[Info-vax] Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

[Richard Maher]

Hi John,

> Apparently you've misunderstood. SOA is dead. It must be true, its
> obituary was in a blog post at the Burton Group yesterday. Don't take
> my word for it, use the source:

As with most "new" technologies, you know they're dead when HP/VMS jumps in
with both feet and adopts them :-( With their history of backing sure-fire
losers, it's about the safest bet in town. Admittedly, in this case, they
took a good 10 years before once more betting the farm on Lucky-7 but didn't
they do it with gusto? BridgeWorks, SOAP/Toolkit, Java--,WSIT, Axis2, gSOAP,
glassFish - Yep these guys and gals know how to party alright! They've got a
flawless system, just keep doubling-up with license-payer dollars and you
can't go wrong!

And after partying all night at Club-VMS you get to sleep all day. If anyone
asks what you're doing just bill your time to Cost-Centre 101, or as the
insiders refer to it "Free Time"! No one could care less whether any
customers use this shit or even bother to ask how many customers are left -
I tell ya it's the perfect gig!

> http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2009/01/soa-is-dead-long-live-services.html

Excellent! Clod-Computing - Where Microsoft, IBM, SUN, Oracle et al have
made system development so bloody difficult and expensive that your willing
to outsource your data, business-rules, security, technology, and
independance to anyone just so you can rid yourself of the head-aches. Gotta
love this industry.

BTW, must be a couple of years now since Google threw away its SOAP APIs, is
that not so?

> It's time to accept reality. SOA fatigue has turned into SOA
> disillusionment. Business people no longer believe that SOA will
> deliver spectacular benefits. "SOA" has become a bad word. It must be
> removed from our vocabulary."

No, no, no. According to the cynical bastards at HP/VMS, it's time to make
even more money by screwing those few customers that are left. Of course
they know about SOA fatigue and how bloody difficult it is to do anything
with SOAP, so up-sell them the consultancy services they need to get even
the simplest Hello-World example out the door. (OK, ok; after a couple of
loss-leaders.)

Please remain focused, this is not about what VMS customers need or even
what they want, this is all about getting the same wankers, that have
destroyed VMS over the last 15 years, another 5 years at the trough, and
over the line into retrirement.

In the words of what is suspected to be a major HP/VMS insider: -

"I've got this thing and it's f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not
giving it up for f***in' nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And I can always use
it. I can parachute me there,".

There you have it kiddies, if you'd like support or assistance for your
product for VMS, I strongly suggest you approach the Chicago offices with a
brown paper bag and ask for Big Rod. It looks like he knows how to make the
business :-(

"Is it in the interests of VMS?" Now there's a question. . .

Cheers Richard Maher

<johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f9c448d-e5bb-4778-9739-1c542593f6a0 at w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 3, 3:42 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a... at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > In article <495ef31f$0$90265$14726... at news.sunsite.dk>,
> > Arne Vajhøj <a... at vajhoej.dk> writes:
> >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>> In article <495c3477$0$90271$14726... at news.sunsite.dk>,
> >>> Arne Vajhøj <a... at vajhoej.dk> writes:
> >>>> Main, Kerry wrote:
> >>>>> Yep, I still maintain there is going to be a return to the basics as
> >>>>> Companies can no longer afford grandioseSOA/ "latest rip-n-replace
> >>>>> craze of the month" distributed programming strategy developed by
the
> >>>>> analyst / university / whoever theorists.
> >>>> Companies can not afford not to doSOA. It is pretty expensive not
> >>>> to reuse.
> >>> And you can't reuse withoutSOA? I thought "re-use" was the Ada
buzzword,
> >>> not theSOAbuzzword.
> >> Reuse is aSOAbuzzword.
>
> >> Just at a service level instead of a code level.
>
> > So, your not really reusing then? :-)
>
> It is reusing.
>
> Just bigger chunks.
>
> >>>>SOAis most definitely not about replacing systems. You could argue
> >>>> thatSOAis about not replacing systems.
> >>> Well, when you re-write all your COBOL in Java, sure sounds like
replacing
> >>> to me.
> >> It is.
>
> >> But since that would not have anything to do withSOA(in itself), then
> >> it is not particular relevant.
>
> > Maybe not, but uit certainly has to do with the cost of implementation.
>
> How can the cost of something that is not required bySOA- in fact is
> very nonSOA- say anything about the cost ofSOA?
>
>
>
> >>>> Distributed environments is a reality today. And it is not going
> >>>> to go away tomorrow.
> >>> Let's see, I still have the newspaper article with my picture in it
when
> >>> the place I was working went to "Distributed data Processing". That
was
> >>> 1981. Since then, they have gone centralized, gone back to
distributed,
> >>> gone back to centralized and are now back distributed. May not go
away,
> >>> but it will definitely change.
> >> I think you are reading the term "distributed environment" different
> >> than it was intended.
>
> >> Practically no companies today have all their stuff on a single system.
>
> > Looked at MS Terminal Services/Thin Clients lately? All the power in the
> > data center and not n the desktop. When I mentioned the cyclic nature of
> > this above, I never said it ever went down to one server. The first time
> > we went to "Distributed Data Processing" there were 2 Univac Mainframes
and
> > 5 Prime minis in the datacenter. And they moved a whole bunch of the
> > processing to LSI-11 (and later M68K) micros on the desktop. And then,
> > later, pulled everything back to the datacenter with PC's accessing all
> > the applications from the Unix minis. And then, moved applications out
to
> > the PC's. And the next wave is going to be Thin Clients, which puts all
> > the applications and data in the datacenter, regardless of how many
machines
> > there actually are there. At least until the pendulum swings back the
other
> > way again.
>
> You may needSOAas soon as you have a distributed environment which
> is as soon you have 2+ servers doing the work.
>
> How much of the work is done in the data center and how much of the
> work is done at the desktops has little to do with it.
>
> >> There are very good reasons not have file servers, intranet web server,
> >> internet web server, database, mail server, ERP system, CRM system
> >> etc.etc. running on a single system.
>
> > The data center approach, as opposed to the "Distributed Data
Processing"
> > approach does not now and never meant everyting on just one box.
>
> True.
>
> But the data center discussion was a detour from the topic in the
> first place.
>
>
>
> >>>>SOAis not a university thing. They still do OCAML, Haskell and
> >>>> similar -SOAis practical thing.
> >>> Well, I recently visited another education site I used to work at. We
> >>> use Banner where I am today (it replaced in house applications on an
> >>> IBM mainframe). I asked if they used Banner. I found the answer to be
> >>> rather interesting as it was 180 degrees away from my current
employer.
> >>> They looked at Banner and chose not to for exactly the reasons I have
> >>> a;ways been against any of these canned programs. No flexibility.
Where
> >>> I am now they shove a package at you and tell you to change the way
you
> >>> do things to match the programs capabilities. Now that's what I call
> >>> user friendly. This former locations writes applications based on user
> >>> defined requirements. Care to bet which one is paying more for their
> >>> system and its maintenance? Oh yeah, at my current location, since
> >>> dumping their locally written systems in favor of canned packages the
> >>> programming staff has more than tripled. Tell me again how all this
> >>> new stuff is more economical.
> >> Having one system doing X is usually cheaper than having two
> >> systems doing X.
>
> > Which has what to do with what I said above?
>
> It has everything to do with the topic we are discussing.
>
> >>>> TypicalSOAadvocates have 10-25 years of experience.
> >>> Somehow, I find that very hard to believe.
> >> It is easy to verify by checking out the people writing
> >> about it.
>
> > That only tells you who is talking about it, not who is actually
> > implementing it.
>
> The people talking about it are also working with it.
>
>
>
> >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3crd5o
> >>>>> "Remember Cobol? If You Don't, Get Reacquainted"
>
> >>>>> Extract :
> >>>>> "In spite of its reputation, Cobol remains a resilient force in IT.
Dale
> >>>>> Vecchio, research director at Gartner Inc., says there are roughly
180
> >>>>> billion lines of Cobol worldwide. This isn't surprising, given that
Cobol
> >>>>> has been around for more than 40 years. What is surprising is
Gartner's
> >>>>> comment in a February research note stating that 15% of all new
application
> >>>>> functionality through 2005 will be in Cobol."
> >>>> Not surprising.
>
> >>>> If the new features is <X% of the total app, then it does not make
> >>>> any sense to rewrite the entire app in a new language to add the
> >>>> new functionality.
>
> >>> And if the old, much simpler language can do the job, it really
doesn't
> >>> make sense to use newer, more complicated technology simply because it
> >>> is newer.
> >> "can do the job" is not enough - it has to be "can do the job
cheapest".
>
> > Yeah, and that usually depends on who's pocket the money is coming out
of.
> > If I can bill a re-write to some otehr department, it becomes the
cheapest
> > no matter how much it actually costs.
>
> That phenonomen occurs.
>
> Arne

Apparently you've misunderstood. SOA is dead. It must be true, its
obituary was in a blog post at the Burton Group yesterday. Don't take
my word for it, use the source:

http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2009/01/soa-is-dead-long-live-services.html

Extract: "After investing millions, IT systems are no better than
before. In many organizations, things are worse: costs are higher,
projects take longer, and systems are more fragile than ever. The
people holding the purse strings have had enough. With the tight
budgets of 2009, most organizations have cut funding for their SOA
initiatives.

It's time to accept reality. SOA fatigue has turned into SOA
disillusionment. Business people no longer believe that SOA will
deliver spectacular benefits. "SOA" has become a bad word. It must be
removed from our vocabulary."

There are some enlightened comments too. Jeff Griffiths comment seems
to put things particularly well in real world terms.