* Posts by Nathan Meyer

55 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Apr 2007

Page:

IBM gives Itanium five years to live

Nathan Meyer

It's A Blue, Blue World

IBM makes it's money off it's mainframes, and only sells anything else to further more sales of their proprietary systems.

The Armonk Monster loves Unix, because it's no threat to their lock on large corporate transaction processing systems of record, which are what everything else depend upon.

If HP had had any wit, they would be working on proprietary hardware and software to support their Guardian/Pathway systems; as those are the only real alternative to the descendents of System 360. But HP have fallen for the commodity fallacy, and their corporate head will be up on IBM's trophy rack in ten years or so, staring with taxidermy eyes at Sun, NCR, DEC and maybe even Microsoft by then.

Ah well, I've got me blue BAL coding sheets around here somewheres...

Eclipse gets Fishy on SOA

Nathan Meyer

The Trouble With Orchestration

Good luck with the fish.

The "SOA" concept has been around since I started working in the trade 24 years back. The principle stumbling block I have observed is that if you make the Data and Business Services reusable, then they must be non-contextual and low function. This has several knock-on effects. First the intelligence of the transaction is driven to the Orchestration layer, which is the only level that knows the context of the transaction and the meaning of events within the transaction. All transaction logic, relational edits and data locks must be maintained at the Orchestration layer. This produces performance problems, deadly embrace and data corruption, as the Orchestration layer has to make multiple calls to multiple services and hold data locks over an extended period of time. Concurrency issues are crippling. These are the issues at the heart of why SOA is of questionable utility.

Also consider that re-use is the primary cost justification for SOA. Surveys reporting the most optimistic levels of re-use (and organizations that just made massive investment in a concept will always rate the results of that investment as positively as possible) claim 10% to 40% re-use. That's not much return on investment, now is it?

Third, like all Objet D'art styles, one generally ends up breaking out business functions into atomic services. This process is often difficult, and has to be re-visited constantly, as the granularity of the service doesn't map to the business definition of a transaction. The first change order affecting a widely used service can pull down the entire edifice.

Fourth, the internal and external security issues of SOA are very disturbing. Function re-use too often leads to people having access to data they don't need and should not see.

It's all very well to say that internal reviews will catch these issues, but in reality it is too easy for say, Hospital Housekeeping staff, tapped into the ADT system for room cleaning purposes, to end up viewing confidential patient records. The lack of context at the Service and Data levels also makes it easier for external hacks to take advantage of those data services once past the walls.

Last, let us speak again of dismal performance. The additional overhead inherent in the multiple messaging required to pull the various bits of the transaction together, and the addition of a text-based parser in the SOAP/XML scheme cannot help but add to that.

This is not to say that there are no applications that would benefit from the SOA version of orchestration; rather that we cannot assume that this is any more of a magic wand solution than CORBA, TUXEDO or DAF were.

IBM embraces - wtf - Sun's Solaris across x86 server line

Nathan Meyer

Just Business As Usual

Sun hasn't a prayer of challenging IBM's dominance of the corporate database.

And Sun really don't compete against AIX; which is mainly used by willing sacrifices to The Armonk Monster.

On the other hand, HP have the Tandem systems; which (in their Guardian implementation, not OSS) are the only possible contender to dislodge IBM from dominance in their most important and lucrative market.

Sun is probably going out in the next few years (although I had predicted 10 years ago that they would be gone by now; I 'm really surprised they survived the last 5 years) and eats HP's Unix lunch from time to time.

"The enemy who is the enemy of my friend's enemy is a friendly enemy."

MS to 'backport' Office 2007 security improvements

Nathan Meyer

May As Well Fire-Proof A Paper house

MS Office is vulnerable because it is a cobbled-together collection of products with "interoperability" pasting them together in the illusion of a single product. The paths to hack the products are the same as the paths to use them together. Add to that the crumbling foundation of Windows upon which most installations of Office are built, and you have a tinderbox. Until MSFT limit interoperation and disgorge the registry, their products will be easy targets for firebugs.

How did we all end up with Windows?

Nathan Meyer

IBM Made Microsoft The Standard

Everyone forgets that up until 1995, Microsoft was a creature of IBM. Windows95 was the official announcement of the break-up; as the implementation of the registry was designed to cold-cock OS/2. ( Which it did rather well; though at the expense of any possibility of ever building a secure and durable OS). Up until then, all the Big Iron guys bought IBM "PC Compatibles". Between 1985 through 1998, I worked at 3 different very large organizations; all of whom had "experts" who purchased IBM labeled PC's so that they could "guarantee compatibility with the mainframe." That's why Windows became the standard. Without IBM promoting DOS and Windows 3.11; MSFT would never have become dominat.

Page: