4 ms·

I'd start with a base image of an enterprise Linux on certified configurations of hardware. This could be a VM, CD they'd burn, or Live USB. Specialize it to so

I'd start with a base image of an enterprise Linux on certified configurations of hardware. This could be a VM, CD they'd burn, or Live USB. Specialize it to some more for specific roles. Semi-automate that part esp for creation, testing (esp updates), and distribution. Host it on those cheap, storage sites with verification & other tools pre-installed on their desktops by local admins. One UNIX admin at each remote site with standardized tools for the various functions like DNS, email, etc. A centralized solution for communications, workflow, secure sharing, and so on. They just access it over the internet with replication to a few sites (or even all filtered by whose present there) to get availability or extra performance. I'm not seeing this cost $1 billion even if I did it with VMS clusters. Even that overpriced system that ran whole enterprises was under $100,000/yr licensing per branch with mega-fee for main offices. I can't guess how much support would take but imagine local admins handling a portion of it. If it's just Linux desktops, extra load might be offloaded to vetted consultants or companies that do it on the cheap with anything they do logged. Admins or local developers come up with design improvements or tools for recurring problems.

Karunamon 10y ago
>I'd start with a base image of an enterprise Linux on certified configurations of hardware. And right there you lose, because I all but guarantee there is Microsoft-specific code running at all levels of this organization. Everyone has to be retrained, a lot of infrastructure has to be rebuilt. All of that will chew up your 1bn quickly. This isn't some SV startup, it's the government. Typical "move fast and break things" mindset doesn't fly here. You don't get any "tear it down and start over" moments, you get to make those hairy migrations to ensure everything stays up with smooth, staged cutovers. And that's not even mentioning the red tape...
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  I don't do Silicon Valley philosophy. I'm talking the efficient stuff that midsized organizations overstretched IT teams have been pulling off for years plus some tooling that comes with DISA's extra money. However, the lock-in effect... "because I all but guarantee there is Microsoft-specific code running at all levels of this organization. Everyone has to be retrained, a lot of infrastructure has to be rebuilt. All of that will chew up your 1bn quickly." ...is a valid reason to default on using Microsoft. The difference is that moving what I can to alternatives means I can gradually move from lock-in to more flexible IT with open standards & multiple vendors to choose from. Organizations on Microsoft are often stuck, though. This much is undeniable. IBM, Oracle, and SAP the other huge offenders here.
  - holydude 10y ago
    What makes you think that Linux or OSS route will be cheaper or better ? It's often the opposite.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      It was every time I did it. Plus many of the individual tools are free and mature. No licensing fees. There's also the benefit of not having BSA looking into your firm. The best benefits, though, are in flexibility and security rather than cost. I just have so much more available over long term to me with open formats, protocols, API's, and code. Plus, Microsoft has been saying "screw you" to its own customers in product development over past few years leveraging its lockin to keep them. Whereas, open stuff gives opportunity of switching vendors.
      - holydude 10y ago
        Yes and your personal statistic is irrelevant, sorry. No licensing fees do not imply no costs. You can pay much more indirectly for skilled people or support (Red Hat). I do not buy this. You can have much more flexibility at the expense of having much bigger costs. I very much doubt the part about security. And it's not just me. Attacking the core book anyone ? I agree with open format,protocols and APIs but you can use them in Microsoft world. You do not know what RH or OSS maintainers have been doing for ages right ? Especially when you wanted to mix centos and rh in the same DC. Also remember vmsplice ?

Karunamon 10y ago

>I'd start with a base image of an enterprise Linux on certified configurations of hardware. And right there you lose, because I all but guarantee there is Microsoft-specific code running at all levels of this organization. Everyone has to be retrained, a lot of infrastructure has to be rebuilt. All of that will chew up your 1bn quickly. This isn't some SV startup, it's the government. Typical "move fast and break things" mindset doesn't fly here. You don't get any "tear it down and start over" moments, you get to make those hairy migrations to ensure everything stays up with smooth, staged cutovers. And that's not even mentioning the red tape...

nickpsecurity 10y ago
I don't do Silicon Valley philosophy. I'm talking the efficient stuff that midsized organizations overstretched IT teams have been pulling off for years plus some tooling that comes with DISA's extra money. However, the lock-in effect... "because I all but guarantee there is Microsoft-specific code running at all levels of this organization. Everyone has to be retrained, a lot of infrastructure has to be rebuilt. All of that will chew up your 1bn quickly." ...is a valid reason to default on using Microsoft. The difference is that moving what I can to alternatives means I can gradually move from lock-in to more flexible IT with open standards & multiple vendors to choose from. Organizations on Microsoft are often stuck, though. This much is undeniable. IBM, Oracle, and SAP the other huge offenders here.
- holydude 10y ago
  What makes you think that Linux or OSS route will be cheaper or better ? It's often the opposite.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    It was every time I did it. Plus many of the individual tools are free and mature. No licensing fees. There's also the benefit of not having BSA looking into your firm. The best benefits, though, are in flexibility and security rather than cost. I just have so much more available over long term to me with open formats, protocols, API's, and code. Plus, Microsoft has been saying "screw you" to its own customers in product development over past few years leveraging its lockin to keep them. Whereas, open stuff gives opportunity of switching vendors.
    - holydude 10y ago
      Yes and your personal statistic is irrelevant, sorry. No licensing fees do not imply no costs. You can pay much more indirectly for skilled people or support (Red Hat). I do not buy this. You can have much more flexibility at the expense of having much bigger costs. I very much doubt the part about security. And it's not just me. Attacking the core book anyone ? I agree with open format,protocols and APIs but you can use them in Microsoft world. You do not know what RH or OSS maintainers have been doing for ages right ? Especially when you wanted to mix centos and rh in the same DC. Also remember vmsplice ?