Julien Blache +claim that no +patch is better than a useless patch. I completely disagree, as a +patch allow one to discuss a concrete and proposed solution, and also +prove that the issue at hand is important enough for someone to spent +time on fixing it. No patch do not provide any of these positive +properties.
+Where I work at the University of Oslo, one decision stand out as a -very good one to form a long lived computer infrastructure. It is the -simple one, lost by many in todays computer industry: Standardize on -open network protocols and open exchange/storage formats, not applications. -Applications come and go, while protocols and files tend to stay, and -thus one want to make it easy to change application and vendor, while -avoiding conversion costs and locking users to a specific platform or -application.
- -This approach make it possible to replace the client applications -independently of the server applications. One can even allow users to -use several different applications as long as they handle the selected -protocol and format. In the normal case, only one client application -is recommended and users only get help if they choose to use this -application, but those that want to deviate from the easy path are not -blocked from doing so.
- -It also allow us to replace the server side without forcing the -users to replace their applications, and thus allow us to select the -best server implementation at any moment, when scale and resouce -requirements change.
- -I strongly recommend standardizing - on open network protocols and -open formats, but I would never recommend standardizing on a single -application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.
-