Michael Snyder wrote:

> Perhaps there is a need for ways or a process for everyone to learn what
> is now available and appropriate for  their situation. This may be a
> task for the communication committee. How can we better communicate or
> make available information of what already exists. Do we have a
> university wide map of all the servers and operating systems in use and
> do we have a way of evaluating their performance, or comparing their
> performance?

Good thoughts, Mike.  In fact, we do not have a very good "overview" of CIT hosted
systems/services at this time.  Part of the CIT Web-space redesign effort is aimed
at making these services more visible.  Perhaps communications can help with this,
though I am unclear in what capacity.

>Perhaps it is time for the large group (IT Advocats) to gether for a
>meeting to talk about such issues. I would be willing to assist in
>facilitating such a venture (an adventure). There's probably no need for
>a raging debate but certainly a consideration of the pros and cons, the
>cost/benefits.  Could this be a key issue and focus for the standards

In reference to your previous posting, I think the question of supported OS
platforms is too broad and messy to standardize.  It would be impossible to
mandate a specific set of "approved server platforms" on campus.  On the whole it
is the service that dictates the platform.  For example, say that the standards
committee dictated that RedHat Linux would not be supported.  Then let us suppose
that a vendor announced that a currently supported app on AIX would, in the
future, run only on Linux.  The committee effectively would be recommending
against the use of a vendor application without a review of its (the
application's) merits.

CIT might "recommend" specific platforms on their merits, but I do not see a
future where the standards group will "standardize" supported server platforms.
Although I would prefer to see everyone using UNIX systems with zoo cluster
integration, we use what we have to use to get the job done.