After working on projects with several so called software houses, eg Accenture, Oracle, EDS.... I cannot recommend them.
Whether to customise in or out of the shop is very much a case by case thing.
Criteria for me are how dependent on IT is the company, eg a modern bank will not out source its IT.
Are you reinventing the wheel or doing something new/specific. eg no one in their right mind will write an inhouse word processor, but a business with pretty specific needs or requirements will be hard pushed to find something on the market.
The larger the company the more economic sense it makes to have IT internal. There is a point where a critical mass of expertise can be maintained economically in house. This should know the business better and have a sense a better sense of responsibility to the company.
The big problem with in-house projects is that they are often mismanaged by people put in charge inappropriately. They have unrealistic goals and expectations and unrealistic budgets.
The big problem with out-sourced/so called standard products are that they often don't do what you think they do. They are inflexible. Any changes/special requests cost a fortune and suffer the same problems as the product itself. Not to mention interfacing problems.
As to my FP. This in some ways represents a management by FAD. Rather than managing case by case (ie doing their job) lets generalise and do everything the same (everyone else is doing this it must be right). I have seen large IT dependent comapanies out source/standardise on products because it is 'what they should do' despite evidence to the contrary. Even after several disasters and a huge extra spend they keep going. They are scared to admit their mistake and have to manage/take control.
If you out-source or buy a product then it was the other guys fault - right !
I suspect a lot of peoople who are recommending PC alternatives aren't paying for the OS or the S/W, if you DIY a system you pay way over the odds for these compared to what a reseller adds to a bundled price (eg Dell).
Then there is support, do you want to do this or would you like help with it.
Ease of use. If you want a Nix then the Mac is something you can use and the wife. Can't say that of many.
Then there is size. It seems pretty hard to beat on the size front.
The Dell for instance will be large and noisy in comparison.
The Colombian cartels are illegal in their own countries as well as in the US, the internet Gambling operations are legitimate companies operating in compliance with their local laws.
It is a big difference.
I'm afraid despite all attempts (wishes) to the contrary the US can't apply any law it likes on any country in the world.
IBM had hierchical file stores, then relational databases then XML repeats IBM but much less efficiently.
People are all reinventing the wheel. Many web sites in fact are just trying to recreate what client server did much better.
Its broken cos people are trying to do stuff html wasnt designed for ( ie simple presentation and links ).
Do something about it: probably best to use Applets or flash or something similar or keep with client server. Problem there is the bandwagon isn't moving in that direction.
Maybe we should all go back to Xwindows !
That could be my new motto, don't reinvent the wheel, just go back round it.
Hehe I'm a Brit so no fear there, altho the UK civil service has an admirable track record when it comes to flushing away loads of cash on IT systems - occaisonally they might even work - although obviously not at the original price.
My other bank recently upgraded and works fine with Firefox now.
I spose 1 out of 2 isnt so bad.
Oddly enough the bank that does work with firefox mentioned something about redesigning as they have too many probs with Java. Not quite sure what they mean here - or what they intend to replace it with.
Big prob with IE is a) its built-in to Windows and b) stuff like Update require it. So you are in fact forced to have it - of course this isn't monopoly abuse !....honest.
XML is a load of old cobblers IMO. It is overused and overhyped.
You just need to compare Apache config files with the newer xml ones to see how useless it is.
As for people who want to make databases out of it IBM tried this is the 70s with hierarchical file structures, and quickly replaced them with relational databases.
In fact there is a whole slew of Java programmers out there with no idea what to do with a decent RDBMS buys reinventing wheels.
I always thought XML was meant as a simple data interchange protocol between systems. As such it has huge overheads but was adequate, all the rest is sheer madness.
Slashdot Mirror
Management by market momentum is a disaster, and yes I completely agree with what you said.
I remember Borland making a really good C compiler it was light years ahead of M$oft. what did the market buy.....
Management by default is a failure to manage and is far too widespread and is one of the main reasons these things end up a complete mess.
Problem is finding a decent consultancy that isn't out to screw you.
Eek what a generalisation.
After working on projects with several so called software houses, eg Accenture, Oracle, EDS.... I cannot recommend them.
Whether to customise in or out of the shop is very much a case by case thing.
Criteria for me are how dependent on IT is the company, eg a modern bank will not out source its IT.
Are you reinventing the wheel or doing something new/specific. eg no one in their right mind will write an inhouse word processor, but a business with pretty specific needs or requirements will be hard pushed to find something on the market.
The larger the company the more economic sense it makes to have IT internal. There is a point where a critical mass of expertise can be maintained economically in house. This should know the business better and have a sense a better sense of responsibility to the company.
The big problem with in-house projects is that they are often mismanaged by people put in charge inappropriately. They have unrealistic goals and expectations and unrealistic budgets.
The big problem with out-sourced/so called standard products are that they often don't do what you think they do. They are inflexible. Any changes/special requests cost a fortune and suffer the same problems as the product itself. Not to mention interfacing problems.
As to my FP. This in some ways represents a management by FAD. Rather than managing case by case (ie doing their job) lets generalise and do everything the same (everyone else is doing this it must be right). I have seen large IT dependent comapanies out source/standardise on products because it is 'what they should do' despite evidence to the contrary. Even after several disasters and a huge extra spend they keep going. They are scared to admit their mistake and have to manage/take control.
If you out-source or buy a product then it was the other guys fault - right !
Certainly has a lot of PHBs scared. I know of many places where everything is outsourced and only standard products.
Customise it ! Do it in-house !! Are you mad !!!
To the extent these companies are spending a fortune rather than in-house and customise/support their business processes
I suspect a lot of peoople who are recommending PC alternatives aren't paying for the OS or the S/W, if you DIY a system you pay way over the odds for these compared to what a reseller adds to a bundled price (eg Dell).
Then there is support, do you want to do this or would you like help with it.
Ease of use. If you want a Nix then the Mac is something you can use and the wife. Can't say that of many.
Then there is size. It seems pretty hard to beat on the size front.
The Dell for instance will be large and noisy in comparison.
That was my first thought. To properly spoof all the sites so a user is fooled.
:-)
But I suppose key sites you want to capture are all that are required and the rest can be passed through.
So who wants to get one of these going
Ok, you have OS X which is a serious Unix flavour, well supported, best GUI on any Unix(Linux included) - and you want to install Linux.
Aside from the fact most stuff has an OS X port, why would you run Linux ?
Hmmmmmmm Duff !
Good idea, see you down the pub. Lets say every Friday !
The Colombian cartels are illegal in their own countries as well as in the US, the internet Gambling operations are legitimate companies operating in compliance with their local laws.
;-)
It is a big difference.
I'm afraid despite all attempts (wishes) to the contrary the US can't apply any law it likes on any country in the world.
Well, not without invading it first
Oddly enough it is all cyclical.
IBM had hierchical file stores, then relational databases then XML repeats IBM but much less efficiently.
People are all reinventing the wheel. Many web sites in fact are just trying to recreate what client server did much better.
Its broken cos people are trying to do stuff html wasnt designed for ( ie simple presentation and links ).
Do something about it: probably best to use Applets or flash or something similar or keep with client server. Problem there is the bandwagon isn't moving in that direction.
Maybe we should all go back to Xwindows !
That could be my new motto, don't reinvent the wheel, just go back round it.
Hehe I'm a Brit so no fear there, altho the UK civil service has an admirable track record when it comes to flushing away loads of cash on IT systems - occaisonally they might even work - although obviously not at the original price.
There are some very nice flash sites out there.
Flash remoting and web services also gives you quite a bit of flexibility.
Admittedly some of the Flash ads are very annoying.
Yes lousy bank sites.
:-(
I have one that insists on using the MS JVM
My other bank recently upgraded and works fine with Firefox now.
I spose 1 out of 2 isnt so bad.
Oddly enough the bank that does work with firefox mentioned something about redesigning as they have too many probs with Java. Not quite sure what they mean here - or what they intend to replace it with.
Long live Macromedia Flash.
Much better than HTML that has been pushed well beyond its initial design intents and then bastardised with the DOM and Javascript.
Seriously, the web needs something new, fresh and well thought out - instead of continually flogging the dead horse !
Payroll system in ActiveX :-(
Does your company specialise in S&M or is it just too blinkered to MS to consider its options.
Saying that a lot of good products have fallen by the wayside due to companies wearing their MS goggles.
Sorry if this is a bit of a flamebait.
I use the open in Internet Explorer extension.
....honest.
It is useful to have.
Big prob with IE is a) its built-in to Windows and b) stuff like Update require it. So you are in fact forced to have it - of course this isn't monopoly abuse !
XML is a load of old cobblers IMO. It is overused and overhyped.
You just need to compare Apache config files with the newer xml ones to see how useless it is.
As for people who want to make databases out of it IBM tried this is the 70s with hierarchical file structures, and quickly replaced them with relational databases.
In fact there is a whole slew of Java programmers out there with no idea what to do with a decent RDBMS buys reinventing wheels.
I always thought XML was meant as a simple data interchange protocol between systems. As such it has huge overheads but was adequate, all the rest is sheer madness.
Ah Antivirus software.
/.
This is actually the biggest virus I know of. It kills my work machine when I am trying to do anything useful, although I am fine reading