By default, telnet is not enabled on Windows 7 due to insecure connection security concern.
In order to enable and install Telnet in Windows 7, the steps are easy, and similar to procedures to turn on and enable Telnet in Windows Vista:
* Open Control Panel.
* Go to Programs or Programs and Features.
* Click Turn Windows features on or off.
* In the “Windows Features” dialog box, select (tick) the Telnet Client check box.
* Click OK.
* After installation is done, Telnet can be used and called immediately.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Enterprise Architect Vs. Solution Architect
There are a lot of Architects and types of Architectures that are spoken about leading to a dilution in the meaning and the responsibilities of each.
After going through the TOGAF literature on Enterprise Architecture, I was able to clearly distinguish between the roles and responsibilities of an Enterprise Architect and Solution Architect based on the work they are supposed to be doing.
Keeping in mind that Enterprise Architecture is to draw a Roadmap to align IT to Business by assessing the current state and understanding its gap from the target state, and Enterprise Architect is one who is able to come up with the transitional architectures that lead to various IT projects typically (sometimes even business projects). EA would define the solution context along with the high level transition architectures and hand over to the 'Solution Architect' with the details of the analysis.
After this, the EA is involved only in Governance Procedures to ensure that the Solution in the project is being implemented on the suggested solution building blocks and adhering to the initially defined Architectural principles.
It is at the point just before the roll out of projects or at the beginning of a roll out that a solution architect takes over from an EA and starts detailing the solution with the help of data, infrastructure and application architects (if required based on SMEs required). An SA would be answerable to an EA on any deviations required, justifications for the same etc.
Does this ring the bell? Is this the way the industry works? Any thoughts?
After going through the TOGAF literature on Enterprise Architecture, I was able to clearly distinguish between the roles and responsibilities of an Enterprise Architect and Solution Architect based on the work they are supposed to be doing.
Keeping in mind that Enterprise Architecture is to draw a Roadmap to align IT to Business by assessing the current state and understanding its gap from the target state, and Enterprise Architect is one who is able to come up with the transitional architectures that lead to various IT projects typically (sometimes even business projects). EA would define the solution context along with the high level transition architectures and hand over to the 'Solution Architect' with the details of the analysis.
After this, the EA is involved only in Governance Procedures to ensure that the Solution in the project is being implemented on the suggested solution building blocks and adhering to the initially defined Architectural principles.
It is at the point just before the roll out of projects or at the beginning of a roll out that a solution architect takes over from an EA and starts detailing the solution with the help of data, infrastructure and application architects (if required based on SMEs required). An SA would be answerable to an EA on any deviations required, justifications for the same etc.
Does this ring the bell? Is this the way the industry works? Any thoughts?
TOGAF and Zachman
There are quite a few Enterprise Architecture Frameworks like TOGAF, Zachman, DODAF, FEAF and many more.
However, the most often talked about are TOGAF and Zachman in the IT communities that I have interacted with. So, I thought, I will share my thoughts on what are the major differences between the two.
They have somethings in common but are widely different in terms of their coverage.
TOGAF is a methodology that includes a EA Process (The ADM) as well as the taxonomy and the required templates and guidelines for an enterprise architecture practice.
However, Zachman only provides only a taxonomy (pretty exhaustive) and is completely silent on the process, guidelines and techniques.
To draw parallels between the two, TOGAF suggests an Architecture Content Framework consisting of a Content Meta Model - Zachman's taxonomy maps to this part of the TOGAF specification.
Hence it is often claimed that TOGAF can work in conjunction with any other EA model like the Zachman Framework - since the taxonomy could be derived from Zachman while the process could be that of TOGAF.
However, the most often talked about are TOGAF and Zachman in the IT communities that I have interacted with. So, I thought, I will share my thoughts on what are the major differences between the two.
They have somethings in common but are widely different in terms of their coverage.
TOGAF is a methodology that includes a EA Process (The ADM) as well as the taxonomy and the required templates and guidelines for an enterprise architecture practice.
However, Zachman only provides only a taxonomy (pretty exhaustive) and is completely silent on the process, guidelines and techniques.
To draw parallels between the two, TOGAF suggests an Architecture Content Framework consisting of a Content Meta Model - Zachman's taxonomy maps to this part of the TOGAF specification.
Hence it is often claimed that TOGAF can work in conjunction with any other EA model like the Zachman Framework - since the taxonomy could be derived from Zachman while the process could be that of TOGAF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)