Re: To all those bitching about auto updates...
Please demonstrate where I can buy Enterprise LTSB as an OEM with consumer hardware and no subscription.
5988 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Please demonstrate where I can buy Enterprise LTSB as an OEM with consumer hardware and no subscription.
4037 at present. No sarcasm.
For every article I am currently researching and/or writing there is a browser window open with potentially huge numbers of tabs. I don't have to track all tabs; only what each window in the stack's "topic" is.
I have a window for communitcation/evangelism (read: twitter and blogs)
I have a window for Path of Exile related tomfoolery
I have a window for multimedia (read: youtube) that I periodically listen to/watch.
These are all "living" windows. The tabs change frequently as things are opened and closed. Bookmarks don't cut it. Entire windows full of tabs - sometimes hundreds of tabs - will be closed all at once as soon as the relevant article for that topic is done.
I'm a writer. And I write for you lot. That requires absolutely stupid amounts of research. Commentards are vicious, remorseless internet piranhas that enjoy nothing better than tearing writers' very souls apart for the smallest mistake.
So: no sarcasm. 4000+ tabs.
And this 2011 Alienware MX18 just fucking delivers. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! And if you think that's torturing a system, you should see what I'm doing to the Broadwell Xeon I'm testing.
Oh wait, you will, because I'm writing that review right...about....>clickty<
Check with your local event planners. There may be restrictions on voltages that determine which one you bring. ;)
All of us make someone else rich - government, CEO, shareholders, partners, etc.
But why would or should I give up even a second of unpaid time to do so? Hmm?
You signed up to do your job and, let me guess, "other duties as assigned" or some other vague, open ended clause. If not, quit, and find a new job. Either way, stop acting like a teenager who doesn't get their way.
I did quit, ya arse. That doesn't mean I, or anyone else should take it on the chin from others just because you personally enjoy making other people rich in your spare time.
Because if there is a data breach and you work for an SME, then kiss your job and income goodbye.
Then do it now and don't delay. There will be data breaches. They are inevitable and cannot be fully prevented. Prevention is only one part of security. There is also detection/monitoring mitigation and incident response.
If you are in a position where you will lose your job because of a data breach then get the hell out right now. Period. Especially since you cannot properly educate or control an unwilling company or it's employees, not matter how many other people's jobs you do while trying.
Its different work, for the same pay. A company pays for your time and skills. As long as they deem to utilize them properly, then I see no problem.
It's more work for the same pay. The company doesn't pay per hour. They never do. They pay a flat salary and expect you to deliver on X deliverables. Because of this it's seen as okay to just ask IT to do the work of multiple people.
No problem, right? Wrong. We didn't sign up to be learning technology, sales, marketing, and politics and implementing that all in the job. Where and when are you going to learn this? Are you paid for that training time? For the courses? Are you going to be paid for all the overtime? Are the expectations on deliverables and timeframes for the technology projects going to become more reasonable as a consequence of having to take on these other jobs?
Of course not. You are just expected to stand and deliver. Well fuck that. Fuck that hard.
If you want to give up your personal time making someone else rich, then you're nuts.
If it improves security and makes our job easier - fuck yes!
Why should IT care about security unless they're being paid to? And why should they do anything that "makes their job easier" if it means more work for less pay? That's the opposite of an easier job! If the job is more crap then pay more. Simples.
Now stop being a whiny bitch, its not like its your personal money!
It's my personal time. And if I don't bitch about people treating IT staff like shit, they'll just keep dumping on IT staff and treating them like shit. IT staff are worth more than that.
You are an IT journalist and you think things should not change in IT?
Lots of things should change in IT. Clearly, you and I disagree with which ones.
What world are you living in?
A world in which discrimination against introverts is considered to be every bit as discriminator as discriminating against women, or individuals of colour, or...
IT evolves faster than most fields, not only in tech but in what IT does
I agree. But you are attempting to say that in addition to IT staff having to keep up with their own specialty evolving at breakneck pace that - to be perfectly blunt - most people wouldn't be able to cope with, they need to take on ever more other people's jobs so that those people can do less and less work.
That's bullshit of the highest order.
Decades ago there was not such a big pool of people to fill IT jobs. You could be that asocial guy. Now there is a huge glut of people who can fill those jobs and so they also need to have other skills to gain an edge over the competition to get those jobs. One of those skills is communication, welcome to IT in 2015!
Actually, there's a dearth of experts and specialists today and a whole lot of barely competent "feelers". You seem to think the latter are a good thing. You are wrong.
IT is about technology. It should retain the top talent for that technology. If you want somewhat technically literate people who specialize in social niceties make them managers, train them as such and have them run interference between the actual people applying the technology and the lazy shits in the rest of the company demanding that IT do everything while they pound their puds all day long.
It is IT's job to communicate about their specialties. Just like it is everyone else's job to communicate about their specialties!
No. nobody else has to communicate about their specialties. Everyone else either has individuals in their departments (typically managers) whose job it is to be that point of contact or they have laws that put the onus on everyone else to learn and obey.
IT is the only department in the modern business place that is being asked to become a "company within a company". Everyone else can balloon in personnel size, have sub specialties, layers of management or simply force other departments to learn by fiat.
IT shouldn't put up with being the whipping boy. Predators prey on the weak, and you are advocating nothing but weakness amidst a sea of predators.
C.O.M.M.U.N.I.C.A.T.I.O.N <-- Learn this.
You still haven't convinced me why I should. Are you bad at communication or something?
@LDS you go to work to work with cool tech and are willing to pay the price of doing multiple people's job to do so.
I want to work with technology specifically because it's a means to make a living without having to deal with people, and I really don't care if the tech is "cool" or not.
I expect in either situation the company will buy the tech that is required to meet their legal and business objectives. Maybe if you politic you can get tech that is beyond those requirements. I'm content to work with tech that is exactly what is required. But yes, I absolutely expect the people in charge to either know enough to select the tech they need, or to read the documents I send them explaining what they need.
Unlike some, I don't gussy up the requests in order to get "cool" tech. I only list what is required. If they can't understand or believe that then they need to hire someone they believe will, in fact, tell them the truth. I should emphatically not have to "sell them" on the idea.
Perhaps you see the difference now between the two approaches and goals?
Would you train a dog by reading procedures to it and threatening it with a stick?
Dogs are willing and able to learn. Most employees aren't.
You'd make it fun and engaging, showing the dog their is a benefit in it (i.e. a treat)
So you want to give treats to everyone in a business in order to do their job by making IT do things they hate?
Fuck you. In the face. With a metric tonne of battery acid.
Personally, I hate the whole fucking idea of "IT" taking responsibility to educate users, thats not what I signed on for - but it looks like we've been lumped with it, so we may as well do it properly.
Why should I do a single thing that isn't what I signed on for unless there is a substantial reward for doing so? Preferably in a large number of additional dollars.
Every job requires some social interaction so in reality you are being asked to do your job
Bullshit. Lots of jobs require no, or extremely marginal amounts of social interaction. For decades IT was one of those. There is no reason for this to change.
If you don't like it, fine, go get another job that you like
And thank you very much, I will. But not because you give me permission. Because fuck you and your arrogant douchbaggery.
or go move to some place in the woods that no human has ever set foot.
This article is about educating users. If you don't want to educate them then you don't have to, but don't expect end users to know how to do things the way you want them done
The job of the user is to read the information provided about how to use the tools they are provided and comply with that information. If users are "special" and unable to read then the company should provide them a wetnurse who can read the documentation and explain it to them in small enough words. That isn't IT's job, and in no rational world should it be.
Compromise is not weakness.
Yes it is.
It is the only way to work with others for the best solution for everyone.
Except that what is being described isn't the best solution for everyone. It's the best solution for everyone but IT. Compromise involves both sides giving ground in order that both sides achieve gains. IT being the only one who gives ground isn't really compromise. It's defeat.
Yes, sometimes you might get everything you want but most of the time you will have to compromise in life.
Compromise in which both sides give up equal amounts in order to achieve a mutually beneficial end is find. "Compromise" in which you capitulate in order to save those in power a bent pittance (so they can get bonuses) and so that everyone else can get away with doing less while you do ever more isn't "compromise". It's defeat.
An oak and a reed in a storm and all that.
You don't have to worry about oaks, reeds or storms if you live in a sealed underground bunker that is at all times prepared for war. And make no mistake, this is war.
If you are going to work in society then you have to work with people.
I don't want to work "in society". I want to work with computers so that I don't have to work in society. Fuck society.
Is it that hard to understand?
Yes. For decades IT was where people who explicitly didn't want to work with people could go. Those who preferred machines to men; logic to emotion; code to politics. I don't understand why this should change, excepting that corporations are increasingly cheap fucking bastards seeking to save money by forcing IT to have more and more and more and more skills instead of investing in the necessary layers of translation required to allow specialists to remain specialists without trying to force them to also be salespeople, marketers and politicians.
If you are an employee at a company, unless you are one of the lucky few who don't have to deal with people, you have to deal with people on some level.
Do you even read what you write?
Look, for decades IT were "the lucky people" who didn't have to deal with people. Why should we, as IT staff gracefully accept an end to this, instead of fighting the demanded changes with every ounce of our being?
Get used to it.
If you want to be asocial then you can do it on your own time.
Wrong. If you want me to be social then you can pay me significantly more to put up with that shit as well as fix your technowidgets. They are two jobs. You want me to work two jobs then you pay me two salaries.
Yes, it sounds harsh but it is a fact of life.
No: you want it to be a fact of life. I say "fuck you", stick my middle finger up in the air and take my skills elsewhere. To hell with you and everyone who believes in your vision of a homogenous society. I support diversity. There should be many niches for many types of people, and any asshole who thinks otherwise can get bent.
"Right, but in any environment you have to speak in a language understandable by your audience"
"IT people think they are being asked to be everything when all they are being asked to do is to learn to communicate with others"
The whole reason I went into IT in the first place was so that my audience would be computers, and those who preferred communicating with computers instead of people! FFS, why the metric monkey fnord is that so bloody hard for people to understand? We are not all social creatures. We do not all want to be social creatures. We will never all be good at being social creatures
This relentless drive to punish those who are not gregarious extroverts is beyond annoying and borders on predjudice. Quit trying to eliminate every place where asocial people can hide. If you want to kill us off be man (and woman) enough to pick up a fucking gun and do some genetic cleansing. At least then you're honest about things, rather than trying to make millions of people choose between a life of employment misery or dying in the street.
We spend a third of our lives at work. That time should be as interesting and engaging as possible. It shouldn't be a prison where you are tortured every day. For many of us, having to act like sales and marketing people, being socially gregarious and extroverted is a form of torture.
Society should support people of all types. Not just those who conform to the social norm of business-class extroversion.
Comptuers aren't people. That's the attraction. We don't want to teach. We want to program. We don't want to coddle emotions, we want to install applications. We don't want to deal with office politics, we want to implement policies from a centralized management application.
Why should we, the technologists, have to make up for the deficits of everyone else int he entire bloody company, hmm? The company should be providing a body who translates between nerd and whatever it is that populates the rest of the company. Typically that's a manager of some variety.
It's always "give, give, give". IT must change. IT must compromise. IT must adapt. IT must give up everything that makes their jobs worth doing.
Why? For what? The rest of the company is never satisfied. The more IT gives up, the more they demand IT give up. The fact that IT bends at all is merely showing weakness...a weakness that is ruthlessly exploited so that the others can do less, learn less, care less and yet get paid more.
Fuck 'em. All of 'em.
Again with the "IT must not only be technical experts, they must be sales and marketing experts without any additional training, pay, etc."
Fuck IT. There's way easier work that pays the same (or better) out there. Turn a wrench and make some oil come out of the ground. You're only expected to do one job. Unless you want to upcertify to get your WHIMIS or EMT or something...but then you get extra pay. The expectation that IT will be all things to all people is utter bullshit.
Working to transform a $25B a year company so that it can thrive in a new world is hard.
It is quite an ambitious endeavor.
It requires a sort of communal ambition combined with a series amount of pride in one's work. That's totally different from the sort of "shank your grandma for a bent copper" personal ambition that is what has largely driven the exodus from EMC. And EMC isn't alone, I should point out. For the past 5 7 years you've basically been able to find VMware executives on Craigslist. That's before we get into the madness at NetApp!
Gleeful critics and disruption greet you at every turn. It isn't for the feint of heart.
Everyone has to deal with critics. Nobody gets a free pass. And I'd say that being a $25B company makes you better able to deal with disruption than a startup.
Look at EMC. A number of different disruptive technologies have appeared in the storage landscape and EMC has been able to lollygag for years, planning their next move. Meanwhile, companies like Maxta, SimpliVity and others have seen their disruptive "product" (hyperconvergence) become a mere feature.
Nutanix sees it, is researching, adapting, moving beyond "just hyperconvergence" to a much larger and more complete vertical stack. The others are trying, but Nutanix has stolen a big march. EMC sees all of this (we hope) as well as where it is going and should (if they don't screw up) be able to not only catch up with Nutanix (and the others) but be able to leapfrog them as well.
But that won't come from those scrabbling for personal position and gain. It will come from the really long, hard work of those who will labour for years in secret and then earn little more than their individual paycheques. Just another day's work. Just punching the clock. (EMC could buy, but it may be too late to buy Nutanix, and it's entirely possible that none of the others would be both far enough along and a good enough cultural fit to assimilate for hte 5-10 years required to bring a full stack product to market.)
Vaughn is a class act, by the way.
He's seemed okay enough. Bit snippy, but I actually rather like that about people; usually means they're being honest. Lives and breathes rarefied air though. Doesn't seem to have much time for plebians. Pretty normal in his line of work; can't really complain about it much.
They may be, Vaughn. But they'll go through a slump here right soon as the legacy arrays struggle to catch attention, especially at the eye-watering prices they are charging. Heck, people are even willing to buy from you over at Pure at your prices rather than EMC, and they do it in a big way! And you guys charge $virgins!
But hyperconvergence is coming. It's driving down costs. Datacenter convergence is already emerging, driving down costs further. Software defined infrastructure plays are being researched and endgame machines are being assembled.
Worse, companies are managing to build just fine arrays on commodity hardware. Those afraid of the future and wishing to cling to arrays are increasingly able to find tried and tested arrays for a fraction the cost of EMC. That's bad for them.
That said, unlike NetApp, EMC seems to understand the above. Or, at least, some people at EMC understand the above and haven't been fired yet. The really ambitious, aggressive people that could see change was coming all left for Pure ages ago. The ambitious but not aggressive people that could see change was coming left EMC to form their own startups. And the ambitious but socially gregarious people that could see change was coming came from all over to join Solidfire.
That still leaves a huge collection of very technically talented, albeit not overly ambitious people at EMC that see change is occurring and have more than enough talent to drive innovation internally. Nobody at EMC seems to be interested in purging them, so EMC won't head down Netapp's path.
The $64B question is: will EMC tap those unambitious, but technically talented individuals who can see the changes required by soliciting their opinions and then listening to them? This is the "good management" question. The ambitious people all left. Ambition is required to raise one's head above the parapet and volunteer opinions.
EMC will, or it won't. If it doesn't, it will have to rely on acquisitions to see it through. Again: it isn't NetApp here. Sometimes the acquisitions go okay with EMC. Unfortunately, that's only "sometimes". And EMC probably doesn't have too many chances to play "marry the sweetheart" before its star starts permanently fading.
So who will be around to compete with it? Netapp? Pure? Solidfire? Tintri? Nutanix? SimpliVity? Coho?
There are dozens upon dozens of storage, CI, HCI, DCI and IEM companies out there now, beavering away in stealth or evolving organically from other concerns. There isn't room for them all.
It isn't just tech that will pick the winners. Good tech is part of the story. You need a company where the sales, marketing and evangelist roles are populated by people whom you don't want to blend and then pour into the sewer. You need prices that companies can afford. You need continual development to not only meet the challenges of this refresh, but the next and the next after that.
I, for one, am curious to see whom the people that actually matter - the customers - pick to survive.
Which is a wonderful lie you tell yourself so that you can go on living a wasteful, energy intensive life as inexpensively as possible without any guilt, feelings of remorse or need to think about the world we are leaving for future generations.
Yeah, you're awesome. Fuck reality, you da goddamned man! Da goddamned man!
Don't you just hate it when reality doesn't support your selfish worldview?
A multi-billion dollar company could easily maintain grub-legacy. For that matter, it could preserve the concept that "every config must be editable as a flat text file" thusly producing a sane and rational distro. None of this neo-registry bull that's all the rage.
Red Hat is perfectly happy to throw its weight around in order to try to own new markets, or become relevant in markets where it dropped the ball. It's not remotely so interested at throwing its weight around to help ensure important packages in Linux adhere to concepts like flat text files or "doing one thing and doing it well".
Red Hat has let the inmates run the asylum and the result is the first Red Hat distribution in my entire career that I flat out refuse to work with.
Still, Red Hat gave 20 years of solid awesome. It was probably insane of me to think that this would continue indefinitely (or at least for the duration of the rest of my career). I'm sad about the steaming pile that Red Hat has become, but I don't have the will to fight.
Red Hat's resources are billions of times my own. The mad hatters that want to ruin Linux in order to build their own little empires of ego and hubris are more charismatic, wealthier and better connected than I. If I leveraged every single connection I have, called in every favour I am owed, used every last penny I could beg, borrow or steal my discontent would register upon Red Hat not at all.
So, to put things fairly bluntly: fuck 'em.
There are alternatives. I am investigating them. I can do literally nothing to even get Red Hat's attention, but if I throw the full force of my capabilities towards helping some of the alternatives succeed maybe I can help a truly open, community-focused and user-oriented distribution grow.
When life hands you OpenOffice by Oracle, you make LIbreOffice. I hope enough other people agree that this needs to occur that, combined, we can make it happen.
Gone are the days of just editing grub.conf by hand sadly, which was simple and very obvious
Not just grub; RedHat seem to be keen on doing away with this all over. Which is batshit fucking bananas crazy.
...why, for the love of Jibbers, why?
Buy Tintri. Or Pure. Actually, do they have enough money for Pure?
Fuck it. Buy SimpliVity. They're already close buddies anyways. At least then they'd be buying the future (hyperconvergence) instead of the past (arrays). Besides, Cisco's customers don't mind proprietary bits, so the accelerator card shouldn't bother them.
Or you could learn to chill the fuck out and take a breather. A few seconds extra between this set of lights and the next won't change your life.
When asshats honk at me because I'm a little bit slow out of the gate on a set of lights - usually because some pedestrian looks like they are considering YOLOing across the street - I drive extra slow, just for them. I will continue to do so.
Traffic sucks everywhere. Plan accordingly.
Pillory the overly expensive licensing, lack of innovation and bizarre bundling (EVO:RAIL, hullo!) all you want, but VSAN is slouch. vSphere 6 is a solid release and VSAN has been a solid storage solution. Good tech, well tested, well supported.
Now, if only anyone other than the elites could afford it, and there were sane, smooth progressions from one tier of licensing to another. Ah well, that's what competition is for, no?
I'm not saying storage gateways aren't cool, but they aren't hyperconvergence. They're storage gateways.
And yes, arrays are legacy.
The CRTC stood by and refused to allow Bell Canada to disconnect the service. Great support from a government body.
Ah, back in the days when our government served us. Now it's been captured by the intustries it proposes to regulate. And our choices for leader are between a religious control freak crazy man, a traitor and coward, and a flip-flopping liar.
Don't see no border.
Don't see no people.
Doesn't matter anyways. CRTC rulings that benefit the people will be overturned.
I don't care. Just get me affordable fibre. But not here, no. On the island, please. I aim to head there in about 10 years, which is about the timeframe for a fibre rollout.
How much effort does it take to fire all the vile, sociopathic, money-grubbing executives and their hellions in the licensing department directly into the sun and burn everything, everywhere that contains even a single line of Adobe source code? That is the only thing that is required for Adobe. Ever.
FFS, how many times do I have to write "Java is a piece of shit stop using it unless there's a gun to your head making you do so"?
There is no need for Java in the browser. Many/most people aren't installing it anymore. Bloody everyone is still installing flash. The drum needs banging until we treat the bug ridden piece of shit that is as being at least as toxic as the bug ridden piece of shit that is Java.
Whereas I don't believe that front line staff not giving a damn is an accident or a mistake. I believe that those services are designed to be demoralizing and are purposefully staffed with the bottom of the barrel. I believe that most government services - but especially American ones are purposefully sabotaged.
Some times they do it for malicious intent: rooting out political dissidents, putting "the proles" in their place, etc. But just as often such things are led to ruin purposefully because having a given service degenerate suits the political machinations of someone fairly high up the food chain.
This could be because they covet the budget for their own projects/district/etc. It could be out of spite towards an enemy who supported something they didn't like and is not in charge of that department. It could be any of a number of things.
In my experience however - and, increasingly, as we are learning through all sorts of leaks about all sorts of departments - failure in government and the failure of government are not accidents. Nor is incremental (and protracted!) government overreach.
This is all by design. Petty, hateful, spiteful, covetous, vengeful, prideful, megalomaniacal and yes, even terrified, design.
Governmental degeneracy isn't the result of millions upon millions of individual and coincidental acts of apathy and incompetence. It is the result of purposeful sabotage and thwarting by a mere few thousand near the top.
Hanlon's razon just doesn't apply to government. At least as I see it. Not ever.
It's not just DHS. It's that every time someone is pooh-poohed for "tinfoil hatting" about the US governments ignoble intentions - typically using the premise of Hanlon's razor in order to attempt to silence the cynic - the tinfoil hatter is actually proved right.
I submit to you sir that this is can no longer be considered coincidence: it is design.
Hanlon's Razor does not apply to the US government or it's military industrial complex. Ever.
Have played with swarm. It's actually quite nice. Decent object store and fairly easy to use. If object storage is your thing, you kinda ask for too much more.
That said, I really hope object storage is never my thing. I do so hate writing code...
Actually, it's entirely possible there is no internal activity and the "new" surface is entirely due to atmospheric evaporation and deposition.
And Pluto is a dwarf.
Legit, naturally. Now, are you going to drink that kanar, or am I going to have to come over there and drink it for you?
This from the company that conflates hypervisors and containers. Few things in this world are more arbitrary than Gartner.
The simple fact is that dark matter doesn't have to exist for galaxies to rotate the way they do and not tear themselves apart. There are other ways this could work - specifically that our laws and theories describing gravity are not accurate.
If you say MOND we can't be friends.
Why don't I get you lot a beer instead?
at one point in some undetermined future, the Universe will attain a point of equilibrium and stop expanding
That's one of many interpretations of the data, yes. It seems to be one that more and more scientists are moving towards. A handful think that space - like some sort of elastic - will "snap back" and that whole "big crunch" thing will actually happen.
Others (who are now considered traditionalists, ha!) think space will keep expanding forever, with the force of expansion eventually accelerating past the speed of light (there is a difference between acceleration-driven speed and local timeframe speed which makes this compatible with relativity). At some ????? after this occurs expansion would be so fast that large structures like galaxies, and then stars, planets and even atoms couldn't hold themselves together (the Big Rip).
The former (that the universe will unfold to a maximum extent or eventually collapse) view is held by people who - not to put too fine a point on it - think mcuh of string theory is a whole bunch of hooey. Not that it's all bollocks, mind you, but quite a bit of it. (Brane extrusion is still likely the best reason for our universe to have come into being in the first place.)
The latter people - those who think the universe will continue forever - seem to think the universe will continue expanding forever because that is what it is busy doing now. That the universe changed it mind about how fast it was unfolding in the past seems to be no reason to believe things could ever change again and off they go trying to use maths to prove it. Thus string theory gets more and more silly as they try to beat maths into submission to make it agree.
Basically there are two camps that matter:
1) New space is constantly being created as part of the expansion of the universe and that as a function of this creation there is dark energy. The universe will always create new space (because that's what what it does) and thus the universe is doomed.
2) All the space in the universe was already there to start with, it was just compressed, and the universe is not unfolding to its current size. (Actually, some believe the universe is a multi-dimensional hologram, but let's not get into that as it doesn't really change anything.)
Critical to the debate is the almost anthropic belief of camp 1): that this is the only universe and that it is special. The second group believe that the universe is pedestrian. there are many and instead of being infinite they are popping up all over like sun umbrellas being opened on a beach.
For the universe to expand forever, it basically has to be special. Otherwise it would eventually interact with another universe. Some of us - myself included - believe that the fact symmetry breaking occurred and that expansion changed speeds indicated that our universe has already interacted with other universes (possibly via extra universal forces we don't know - and can't know - anything about.)
Personally, I fall into the latter camp for the simple reason that every time we've thought something about where we lived was "special" we were ultimately proven wrong. There's nothing special about where we live and there's nothing special about us, either.
Thins then changes a "fundamental truth" about what many of us were taught in school: the universe is not infinite. It's just really, really, mind-bogglingly big.
For the life of me I cannot imagine that Dark Matter exists.
Don't see why not. You read about things like pentaquarks here on El Reg on a regular basis. Why is it so hard to conceive of non-baryonic matter made up of a different collection of subatomic particles that result in matter with different properties? We're not talking magic. Just think of dark matter sort of like Linux systems to a Windows admin: same basic building blocks, but being used in a completely different fashion.
I'm convinced that it is gaseous particles, or maybe even small asteroids that orbit galaxies and make up for the "missing matter"
Nope. These would emit light that we could see.
After all, we can hardly spot asteroids in our very own Kuiper Belt
Actually, we're reasonably good at this, given the limitations of the technology to hand. Talk to @plutokiller about how many he's found just in the past few years.
The reason we have trouble is that it's a big ass sky and we have a small ass budget. The primary tool we use for asteroid hunting (Hubble) was never designed for the task. It's slow to turn (shit at tracking anything close by) and has terrible resolution (so kinda crap at focusing on things smaller than stars).
If you wanted to build a modern high end telescope and give it the ability to turn quickly and see in infrared (think an upjumped WISE) you's spot all sorts of awesome stuff. In fact, WISE mark one did see a huge chunk of stuff and we're still picking apart the data from it.
And spotting them in the next solar system is simply impossible
That would be because of the giant ball of fusion that happens to be drowning out the rocks and other things. We can, as a matter of fact, see the interstellar medium and we do have to compensate for it when observing.
Also: the entire mass of a solar system is a mere fraction of the mass of the star. When we calculate what the mass of galaxies "should" be, that's typically included. The problem is that the missing mass is orders of magnitude larger than simply "a bunch of missing planets and asteroids circling the stars".
Questions you didn't ask:
What about rogue planets and brown dwarves?
Glad you asked. This is a growing area of research but the short version is that we can usually actually see these. These live out between the stars so they - believe it or not - count as "galactic dust" as far as we're concerned. They are visible (in aggregate) along with the interstellar medium of the galaxy.
What's more, unless our calculations about solar system formation are wildly off - to the point that we'd need to rewrite physics - there simply can't be enough rogues out there to make up the difference.
I still don't understand what Dark Energy is, though.
Oooooohkay. This is the hard one. Let me try to do this. Apologies for inevitably getting some or all of it wrong.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. And by nothing, of course, I mean everything, but compressed into the most impressive singularity of all time.
Except this wouldn't be a singularity as you understand it. It was "a bunch of baryonic matter shoved into a ball so densely that photons can't escape". Matter didn't exist. Space didn't exist. Not, really, anyways.
But then, all of a sudden, and for no good reason at all, space exploded.
For simplicity's sake I want you to picture the universe as a great big flat circle squished into an impossibly small ball. If you were to unfold that circle and flatten out you would have The Universe in its final, fully extended form. This is The Universe's eventual goal. It was scrunched up so tightly that it is seeking to stretch out a little and get rid of the cramp.
Now, each cubic meter of space to expend energy in order to unfold. This energy comes in the form of two completely different types of energy.
The first type of energy was all released right at the beginning of the universe. The initial collapse of the fundamental singularity caused its emission. At the initial instant of emission it was simply an incomprehensible amount of raw energy occupying an infinitesimal amount of primordial space. This energy would eventually become all matter - dark and baryonic - that we know today.
But the universe was intent on unfolding beyond that mere initial plank space. It continued to expand and as it did so it emitted the second type of energy: dark energy. So far as we can tell, dark energy doesn't interact with the energy that makes up mass in any meaningful way.
In any case, as the universe continued to expand somewhere around 1 usec after the big bang baryogenesis started to occur. The fundamental particles as we understand them formed.
For reasons we don't understand - but which probably mean that either dark energy or dark matter does interact with regular energy on some level - symmetry breaking occurred and the current form of baryonic matter (not baryonic anti-matter) coalesced as the (currently) densest concentrations of energy.
The universe kept right on expanding and that baryonic matter eventually cooled enough that protons and electrons could form atoms and the rest you know from there.
The two odd pieces are symmetry breaking - discussed above - and the variation in universe expansion rates. The initial inflation seems to make perfect sense. The universe sought to unfold and began doing so expeditiously. It then slowed it's expansion for a time and then sped up again.
Some like to think that the gravity of the early universe (it was denser then) slowed the initial expansion. Once past some critical threshold, however, the universe's tendency towards expansion overcame gravity and expansion started accelerating.
The problems with this are A) there's no reason to assume gravity has any sort of effect whatsoever on the universe's desire to expand and B) the universe isn't increasing it's rate of expansion exponentially. (As would be expected if it had overcome some critical threshold.)
The nearest anyone can figure is that the universe is expanding because it damned well wants to, but that it has to expend (or release, like a coiled spring) energy to do so.
I hope that explains things. I am sorry if it doesn't.
Of all the tech companies, I'm slowly coming 'round to be quite positive regarding IBM. Maybe they don't win, but they certainly have a different vision than other companies and are putting both research dollars and a very painful transition period towards what they see as the next generation of computing.
There never was a future for IBM in the low-margin world. They just don't have a corporate culture that can compete in the race to the bottom of shifting tin, cranking out management software or even providing services. There are too many competitors in all of these markets now.
IBM's going other places. Doing things at large scale with computers that only Google seem to be interested in trying for. Win or lose, good luck to 'em! I hope the turnaround shakes lose some of the internal bureaucracy and ends up with a leaner organization focused on competent individuals and not endless managers.
Probably not, but it's worth hoping, sometimes...
Is it really a joke if typed whilst sobbing?
If we'd snagged it we'd be finding all sorts of interesting new uses for platinum. The price wouldn't tank entirely, but it might go down by half. Which is fine. Asteroid mining is viable to even a quarter of current prices. You can also control the price of platinum by varying the return rate.
Also: why return it all? Platinum is really useful in space, and that asteroid will have lots of Silicon. Make high-value parts (like highly efficient solar panels) in-situ instead of lifting them from Earth. Platinum helps with all sorts of high-tech gadgets and given the density is kind of expensive to drag out of our gravity well.
Oh there's some debate here. So Gartner (and some internal EMC projectsions) say that hyperconverged solutions will have 51% of the market by 2018. I disagree and think it's going to be 2020. The wikibon people seem to be somewhere in the middle.
What nobody seems to understand when they do these calculations is that - with the exception of NetApp - array vendors will adapt. EMC is already doing so. Tintri is doing so. Others are slowly trying, at least, for change.
With the exception of Nutanix, hyperconverged vendors are still in startup mode. They don't have the R&D capacity to really go toe to toe with someone like Dell. Array vendors will start to add value by acquiring new startups (like copy data management experts) and raising the bar for enterprise storage functionality. This will force hyperconverged players into a feature way they may well not win.
The end result will be a thinning of the herd on both sides. I ultimately think that hyperconverged vendors will win, but I am expecting a rally by array vendors around the end of 2016 that will buy them a couple of years before arrays are finally reduced to a niche.
The war is already over, but arrays will fight to the last man to keep their margins. And they'll ultimately lose.
Gridstore's cool, but has a few problems
1) Next to no sales. Who has ever seen a Gridstore in the wild? Half the storage analysts I talk to are convinced they're functionally a myth. I'm not entirely sure they're really more than trolling myself.
2) Nutanix does Hyper-V. And they do it damned well. SimpliVity, Maxta and many, many others will be there very soon. (I expect by end of year for most of them.)
3) Marketing. Gridstore's budget for marketing and community engagement appears to be the square root of negative fleventy. This goes back to "who has ever seen a Gridstore box in the wild?" These things aren't in front of the kinds of people who to talks at user groups or Spicecorps or what-have-you. Gridstore has virtually no mindshare amongst the technorati, so even people who know about it tend to forget when it comes crunch time and they have to choose a solution. This leads us to...
4) Really terrible channel support. Gridstore may have a channel strategy. If so, I haven't been able to detect it. If they do have someone out there kicking the channel in the ASCII then those channel monkies aren't doing their job. (See: 3.) They aren't pushing Gridstore as a solution when customers come to call and this is hurting them.
I can't comment much on price - I seem to recall vaguely that it was actually not bad - or functionality - the last time I saw a demo it seemed to do what was required in a reasonable enough fashion - but the fact that I can't summon that information immediately and it is essentially my job to know this stuff just reinforced how ineffective Gridstore has been at remaining "sticky" with mindshare.
By all accounts Gridstore seems a good product, but the company that sells that product is about to get absolutely pwned by the fist of a dozen angry gods as they all turn their eyes from KVM to Hyper-V. Everyone has an ESXi hyperconverged solution. They're all finishing up with KVM/Openstack. Hyper-V is next. After that: Xen.
Gridstore doesn't seem ready to go to war. They don't seem to even understand what is about to happen to them, let alone be remotely ready for it. Too bad, really. They seemed like nice folks.
A) Age is relevant here, especially as correlated with experience, the type and quality of education during their formative years, the culture under which individuals were raised, etc.
B) "Old fart" is not an "ageist" term, unless you are unbelievably oversensitive. It is a term of endearment. It categorizes individuals by age, yes, but it also implies a fondness for the group in general.
If I'd wanted to be ageist I could have chosen any number of other descriptors. Ancient cranks. Hoary gits. Creaky bastards. Grumpy greybeards. So on and so forth.
Now, as to the acceptability of agism, that's another story. On an individual level I don't think it's fair to be prejudiced against anyone. Black, white, short, tall, fat, skinny, old, young, you name it...everyone deserves to be considered individually.
That said, I have negative sympathy for old people as a group.
The few members of "the best generation" that are still around, I have no issue with. But my parents' generation? The boomers? Fuck 'em.
Boomers ruined our planet and created trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt in virtually every other nation. They collectively lived easy lives of low unemployment, easy access to jobs, capital, material goods and resources and left my generation and those who come after us with the bill.
Collectively, boomers are selfish, myopic and in denial about the damage they have done.
Give me an old person and I will do my level best to judge them individually, just as I would anyone else. But I don't have any room in my heart for treat them - as a group - with deference or even respect. I have no room in my heart to treat boomers as a group as though they deserve a goddamned thing.
All of that said, I do rather like "old farts". Technocodgers with decades of experience and a certain cynisim about hype and trends. I've no issue with them, and I use the term they use for themselves: "old farts".
Though, I fully intend to convert thtem all to "technocodger" by the end of the year. Just you wait and see...
If Trevor were to write about this stuff, two things would happen.
1. He'd get sued for breach of contract (the NDA is a contract).
Actually, some of the stuff that's out there might well never make the light of day. It's so very deeply hush hush that sometimes companies get bought up just to keep the tech from competitors. And most of it is damned good. I'd be far more worried about well paid character assassins basically ruining my life than any legal consequences. There are ways to perfectly legally ruin a man's life. I'd rather not attract that sort of attention.
2. He's get excluded from this sort of information in the future.
Which is why I comply. By being one of the few who comply, I get to have input in early stage products and help design go-to-market approaches such that there is at least a chance this technology will be made available to my people (the SMBs) at a price they can afford. I then usually have a shot at getting a launch exclusive review.
In fact, he's probably on shaky ground even admitting that he's subject to an NDA, if they're worded like any of the ones I've been subject to in the past.
This is really the weird part. Yes and no. I probably would get in deep cacapoopoo for letting on which companies I was talking to in the context of this conversation. But general innuendo that "I know people who know people who know things"? That actually works out rather well for the startups in question.
People who need the kind of tech we're discussing (or next gen storage tech, or next gen SDN tech, etc) e-mail me. I pass that info on to the startups and their folks do background checks and maybe reach out, get an early customer.
The world of stealth startups is weird.
If you've seen this top secret stuff then write about it in detail, you're a journalist after all, otherwise it is just another fisherman's story. Without proof, it is meaningless drivel
You're absolutely correct. You either trust me that I have seen this stuff, or you don't. It you do then you can trust that when I am allowed to write about it, I will. If you don't, then none of it matters, does it?
Network connectivity is one of the major barriers. Just how do you know which part of the web is causing a problem? How do you test and manage response times and latencies, especially if your audience now includes users on mobile devices?
Is Azure, Amazon or one of the hundreds of different cloud providers offering the right platform for your particular application?
Nope. Not unless you're A) American, B) picking a public provider in your jurisdiction or C) building a private cloud.
“To burst into the cloud sounds like a great vision but how do you actually do it? How do you implement it? How do you set it up to be flexible? You need clever bits of software and people who can manage that software,”
Not really. The software is relatively commonplace and the skills for it are mundane. You just have to be prepared to spend. And spend and spend and spend. People with those skills are smart, and they won't be treated like crap. Companies with that software charge a lot. And you need great reliable internet connectivity and your ISP is going to take it out of your genitals. With prejudice.
Sounds easy? Maybe not, but if you plan your transition to a hybrid cloud setup correctly you will retain control over your IT. You get to choose how you customise your environment for your workloads.
No, your ISP does. They control the pipe and you do exactly as they say. Same with your hypervisor/management tools vendor. And your tin shifter. And your storage overlords. And - above all else - your government, who may well demand that any company large enough to be seriously looking at hybrid cloud computing build in back doors to allow the spooks to pwn us all in the information so that they can nose out political dissidents.
You are not in control. Everyone else is in control. You just give them money and hope they leave you alone long enough to retire. Even if you're a Fortune 1000 company.
So design your networks with that in mind. If your duty of care - and your legal obligations - run towards the protection of your customers'/employees' data, then you absolutely must treat your ISP, your vendors and your government as hostile agents who are just as likely to try to cause compromise as any outside hacker. They'll use different means, but you need to be prepared to defend against them nonetheless.
Can we trust Google
Probably not. But more than we can trust most governments. Absolutely more than we can trust almost any other company in the tech industry and probably more than we can trust any other fortune 2000 company.
Google are awful, thieving, sociopathic kleptocrats, but of the options available to the hoi polloi they're still the fuckwits likely to do the least amount of damage.