Windows 7 Upgrading

So I finally finished my upgrade from Vista to Windows 7. It took forever, but I did manage to keep all my applications like Chrome, Picasa, and iTunes, and all the settings are okay.

Bob Cringley argues that the time factor in upgrading to Win7 is intentional:

have you actually done a Windows 7 upgrade? Mine took seven hours! It shouldn’t have to take that long unless part of the goal was simply to discourage upgrading.

I had thought of just doing a clean install and starting from scratch, but I do have some files that I don't keep on my external drive, and some of my app settings take a few minutes to configure. Besides, I kind of wanted an excuse to use an awesome site called Ninite that has a lot of the apps I'd need to reinstall on one page.

My first impressions so far are good. My box wasn't exactly straining to run Vista (strong dual-core 64 bit CPU, decent video, and 8 GB of RAM), but now the boots and system processes are faster. The usability is good, but I haven't spent enough time to see the improvements I've heard others talk about.

Overall, I'm pretty impressed actually. Congrats, MS!

Sometimes the LAMP Stack is Appropriate for Enterprise Use: Externally-Facing Blogs

I've been doing a lot of research into how open-source software can and can't be used in Enterprises. In January, I wrote a post called "Is the LAMP Stack Appropriate for Enterprise Use?" That looked into conditions that using it may be a good idea.

I was inspired this morning when reading a blog post about 21 popular brands that use wordpress. Wordpress is an open-source content management platform based on PHP, and I was blown away to learn that eBay, Yahoo, Ford, and the Wall Street Journal all use wordpress in the architectures of their externally-facing blogs

Who would have thought?

Cool Coding Horror Post: Scaling Up vs. Scaling Out: Hidden Costs

Check out Jeff Attwood's post on Scaling Up vs. Scaling Out: Hidden Costs for some interesting food for thought on scaling.

He compares hardware, software licensing, and electrity costs of scaling up vs. scaling out, and it's actually really insightful.

Is the LAMP stack appropriate for Enterprise use?

I spend a lot of time researching technical platforms and architectural components, and working with other developers on determining what's most appropriate for our environment.

Our standards are constantly evolving, but right now we've got a spot for 3 main platforms and 11 main components. One thing I've noticed through the years is how committed people become to their platforms and languages, and how quickly some people will become a vocal Evangelist for their choices.

Obviously, in order to make a choice about enterprise standards, the decisions need to be based on facts and not on emotions, so research is an essential first step. Working with the developers on standards so that all the stakeholders have ownership is the next logical step.

In terms of research, I thought it'd be interesting to throw the LAMP stack question (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP / Ruby / Python) out to the programming community via StackOverflow.

As discussed in a previous post, I think StackOverflow is pretty neat. I've been impressed with the number of eyes technical questions get in front of, and with the amazing speed that insightful answers flow in.

That's why I wanted to pitch the question to the StackOverflow community. Here's the question as posed:

Is the LAMP stack appropriate for Enterprise use?

To be clear, by "Enterprise", I mean a large or very large company, where security, robustness, availability of skill sets, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), scalability, and availability of tools are key considerations. Said another way, a company that looks for external adoption of frameworks / architecture - Something ubiquitous will be seen as more "valid" than something exotic / esoteric in this kind of environment.

I've seen use cases where Oracle, IBM, and Sun have implemented systems on the LAMP stack for various Enterprises. I've also seen examples where websites like yellowpages.com (Ruby on rails) and Facebook (php) are built on it. However, none of these examples are exactly what I'm looking for.

I'm really trying to find examples where it is an Enterprise standard at a very large bank (I.e., Citigroup), Telecom company (I.e., AT&T), or manufacturer (I.e., Proctor and Gamble). Just to be clear, I'm not looking for an example where it's used in a limited sense (Like at JPMorgan Chase), but where it's a core platform for systems like CRM, manufacturing systems, or HR management, as well as for internal and external websites.

The perception I've seen so far is that applications built on the LAMP stack perform slower and are less flexible. Some of the arguments I've heard are:

- Linux is seen as not as well supported as Unix, Solaris, or Windows Servers.

- Apache is harder to configure and maintain than web servers like BEA WebLogic or IIS.

- MySQL is a "not ready for prime time" DB for hobbyists, and not a competitor for SQL Server or Oracle.

- PHP / Ruby on rails are optimized for CRUD (Create, Read, Update and Delete operations). Although this is an advantage when building CRUD-intensive web applications, both perform slower than Java/JEE or C# (which are both common Enterprise standards). Furthermore, a lot of applications and systems (like manufacturing systems) have a lot of non-CRUD functionality that may be harder to build with PHP or Ruby, or even Python.

Can anyone please provide arguments to support or refute the idea of the LAMP stack being appropriate for the Enterprise?

Thanks!

19 answers came in, and in general, they were positive about the appropriateness of using the LAMP stack as an Enterprise Standard. However, to be fair, the types of Enterprise most often cited were web-based (like Google), or those that grew rapidly from being start-ups (like Facebook); They didn't really focus on the Proctor and Gamble, AT&T, or Citigroup-type Enterprises.

Here's the answer that I voted as the best (from a user named S.Lott), even though it wasn't the one with the most votes:

"but where it's a core platform for systems like CRM and HR, as well as for internal and external websites"

"but where it's a core platform for systems like CRM and HR, as well as for internal and external websites"

First, find a LAMP CRM or HR application. Then find a customer for the LAMP CRM or HR application.

Sadly, there aren't a lot of examples of item 1. Therefore, your case is proven. It can't be used for enterprise applications because -- currently -- there aren't any of the applications you call "enterprise".

Your other points, however, are very interesting.

1. Linux is seen as not as well supported as Unix, Solaris, or Windows Servers.

I think Red Hat would object strongly to this. Give them a call. I think they'll make a very persuasive sales pitch. Read their success stories.

2. Apache is harder to configure and maintain than web servers like BEA WebLogic or IIS.

By whom? Apache web site managers? Or IIS web site managers? This is entirely subjective.

3. MySQL is a "not ready for prime time" DB.

Take it up with Sun Microsystems. I think they'd object strongly to this. Give them a call. I think they'll make a very persuasive sales pitch.
Read their success stories.

4. PHP / Ruby on rails are optimized for CRUD, and both are slowly performing.

Could be true. Java and Python might be faster.

PHP and Ruby aren't the last word in LAMP.

In general, the answers were helpful and revealed a deep background knowledge of the users. (Except for one: "no it doesn't scale, lol :D" - The user was downmodded into oblivion.)

To be honest though, my only recent personal experience developing on the LAMP stack was customizing a gallery for a website I run for my dad and his colleagues.

Furthermore, I'm still not convinced that it's all that appropriate for enterprise based systems - Especially those that have to do with manufacturing and logistics.

Check out the question and answers in their entirety here.

UPDATE: Sometimes the LAMP Stack is Appropriate for Enterprise Use: Externally-Facing Blogs

Google responds about the environmental cost of searches

I saw some posts in the blogging echo-chamber recently about the environmental cost of performing Google searches.

Some people had claimed that each search used absurdly high amounts of energy, and produced 7 grams of carbon dioxide. Google has responded by saying that that's just not true:

Recently, though, others have used much higher estimates, claiming that a typical search uses "half the energy as boiling a kettle of water" and produces 7 grams of CO2. We thought it would be helpful to explain why this number is *many* times too high. Google is fast — a typical search returns results in less than 0.2 seconds. Queries vary in degree of difficulty, but for the average query, the servers it touches each work on it for just a few thousandths of a second. Together with other work performed before your search even starts (such as building the search index) this amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ. For comparison, the average adult needs about 8000 kJ a day of energy from food, so a Google search uses just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds.

Good job to Alex Wissner-Gross from Harvard who started this conversation in the first place, and good job to Google - both for responding transparently, and for taking the environment seriously. They not only build efficient data centres, but they co-founded the Climate Savers Computing Initiative.

0-60 in 3.9 seconds with 7000 laptop batteries

This isn't really IT related, but it is pretty cool.



This video is of Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear reviewing the Tesla Roadster. This electric car is based on a Lotus, but with an electric motor instead of an engine.
Instead of gas, it uses 6,831 lithium ion cells arranged into 11 "sheets" connected in series; each sheet contains 9 "bricks" connected in series; each "brick" contains 69 cells connected in parallel. These cells are a lot like laptop batteries.

Breaking news! Tesla Issues Response To Top Gear Review

Tesla motors thinks the clip is not fair to the roadster. Among other things, their spokeswoman says:

“They never had to push a car off the track because of lack of charge or a fault and it isn’t clear why the segment included footage showing exactly that.”

Check out the highlights over at Jalopnik.

More Breaking news! Tesla didn't actually run out of batteries!

It seems that the depiction of the Top Gear crew pushing the Tesla back to the garage was staged. This seems pretty underhanded to me. I can't even imagine what the motives were