3473 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Re: 2 ceo's needed
Please. Spend an hour in the same room as Nadella. Presence is not his problem.
Re: 2 ceo's needed
CEOs need vision. COOs need to kick ass.
Jobs + Cook.
Even if you found your unicorn CEO with all the magical qualities you desire, trying to run a corporation as big as Microsoft he'd burn out like a dry candle trying to do it all himself. That's the point of having a qualified team of executives that can work well together.
Nadella needs to run the thing. He's the only one who could actually craft a vision that would create a Microsoft end users and businesses alike would want to buy from. Elop would be a great COO, knocking heads together and organizing sales forces.
I can't disagree more. Nadella is the best choice. He doesn't need superpowers to fold in Nokia, just good VPs. He has always been a man who knows his limitations and who casts about for additional brains to overcome those limitations. Nadella would make a Microsoct that's responsive to it's customers. Not one that blackmails, threatens and dismisses them. He's not just what Microsoft needs...he's what the industry as a whole needs.
Re: my comments
I feel the need to debate you somewhat here Nate.
Point for your argument: 95% of my deployments don't even use VLANs, let alone anything more complicated. (Though Trunking and 802.3ad/LACP see widespread use.)
Point against your argument: if the "advanced features" were easier to use, at least half those same clients would be on them like white on rice.
The issue - at least at the SMB end of things - isn't that SDN-like features wouldn't make lives easier, reduce OpEx costs and so forth...it's that these companies don't have "network administrators." CCIE cost muchos dineros. Even if you have the money, you have to deal with the egos...and most SMB owners I know of just don't have time for the sorts of Prima Donnas that CCXX seems to attract.
But the do use virtualisation. They are leaping headfirst into storage virtualisation. They'd dearly love to have all the promised functionality of SDN, but with a nice UI and none of those nasty attendant network admins.
Some network vendors claim they have a solution that can meet these needs. Some go on about vendors but refuse point blank to discuss ease of use with me.
Nobody talks cost, not in hard numbers, not ever.
So to an extent you're right: what's on the table today just flat out doesn't apply to a lot of companies. Where you're wrong is that this isn't because the features aren't in demand...it's that those features have to bring simplicity with them in the form of ease of use and the ability to jettison the network admin from the payroll.
That day will come. 5 years, 10....15? Who knows! But virtualisation did away with a lot of dedicated application and hardware cluster admins. It made backups and disaster recovery easier and collapsed those specialties into generic admins in all but the largest organisations. I am seeing the same thing happening to Storage today; Tintri goes in and a storage admin goes out. (Hell, Nutanix goes in and they start culling storage and virtualisation admins, but that's another story for another day...)
Somewhere in the past 10 years vendors of all sizes and in all areas of IT forgot about ease of use. Ease of use isn't sexy. Everyone at every size scripts, right? Everyone can remember every single powershell command for every single application they use, right? Everyone knows ios by heart, right?
What do you mean, you can't afford 15 dedicated admins for each area? What kind of Mickey Mouse company are you?!?
It's interesting to see you pooh-poohing SDN because the fabric portion of the exercise is inherently a layer 2 activity. As far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. Routing is inherently north-south. It's a bottleneck and SMBs like me and mine sure as hell can't afford routers that fling around multiple 10 gigabit links. We can't keep going up the aggregation stack to the top in order to go out to the edge.
I don't even understand why I should ever have to worry about that stuff. Why the hell can't I just connect switch A up to switch B and have the things figure out how to make the bandwidth work? I care about the workloads that run on top of the network, not getting into the thing and writing a script to make it go.
Routing should be something that connects the heavy lifting to the users. I shouldn't need expensive bottlenecks to connect one big-ass high bandwidth device to another so they can play nicely. I shouldn't need expensive equipment or CCwhatevers just to make the damned switches work.
This is where SDN comes in, even in the smallest of businesses. Someone please explain to me why home routers, wifi devices and switches are even capable of layer-2 broadcast loops? We've had spanning tree (and alternatives) for well over a decade, but grandma still has to worry about how many cables are plugged where?
Accounting still can't just plug another cable between switch A and switch B and they'll "just go faster"? Why is this shit still an issue?
Auto MDIx was something we could all agree on, and I haven't needed a crossover cable in at least 6 years. Innovation seems to have stopped there. Protectionism and douchbaggery have completely stalled any advancement in networking and they hold everything else back.
Openflow – or more specifically OpenDaylight – looks like it is going to be the only way out of the morass of asshattedness we find ourselves in on this.
Who wants SDN? In my experience damned near everyone. What they don't want is the protectionist charlatanery that seems wrapped up in most attempts to sell it to the hoi polloi.
Anyways, that's my $0.02. Also: listen to Drew. More sysadmin bloggers are a good thing. The world needs more than my voice (gods know that's true!) and you're a bright chap. Join in and share your wisdom with the crowds. We have cookies.
P.S. One of us. One of us. One of us…
Re: @Prairie Harpy
All of the sads. You are giving them to me.
I have several, however, I do have six copies of that exact same shirt. (Pushed wrong button when e-ordering.) So I wear one of them almost all the time.
"Maybe we are doing hardware-defined networking... but if I can put that same box with better performance and better programmability in your data center, cheaper than a white box out of Taiwan, do you care?"
If the first hit is free, followed by "you pay, you pay, you pay" then you're goddamned right I care. If you consistently end up cheaper than Huawei, we'll talk. If you're just trying to get me on the crank so you can crank every bent copper from my wallet then fuck off you goddamned ecosystem leech.
Switching is a commodity now, Cisco.
Re: I like Australians
You should revolt because your choice of governments are "incompetent, bigoted jackasses" and "bigoted, incompetent jackasses."
Unless, of course, you like bigotry and incompetence. In which case, embrace both of your options.
Re: Are we approaching the problem from the wrong angle?
Whose extended bus technology? QPI? Hypertransport? Infiniband? Something even more proprietary? Who owns the patents? Who makes the money? Who makes the kit? What are the standards?
Ethernet is never the best option for anything. It is, however, something that everyone can play with. This is IT; the best technologies wither due to greed while mediocre technologies that were opened up for the entire world to innovate upon flourish.
If you don't believe me, do some research on USB...
As a general rule SDN is easier to manage than traditional networking. SDN interfaces are often modern, up-to-date GUI affairs that can be addressed via the command line or scripts, but also take into account the rest of the human race that are visual learners and/or only go modify the network a few times a year.
That doesn't cover all implementations, naturally, but in general SDN has been used as a chance to break free from the ios tyranny and open switching administration to those who excel at things other than rote memorization.
"The Internet" is low bandwidth, high latency. Datacenters are high bandwidth, low latency.
A fabric allows me to talk horizontally across a datacenter without bandwidth contention. Explain to me exactly how I accomplish that in a routed scenario without bottlenecking on the router. Or for that matter, how your very Cisco view of networking is going to be cheaper than a mesh fabric with dynamic layer-2 packet routing?
How clever! I'd never heard that one before!
You can lead people to water, but you can't make them think.
I think you just described Windows 8 users...
Re: Typical Microsoft
Apple's aim is negative carbon across the whole company. And plenty of storage vendors offer 100% uptime.
Again, you assume I am talking about datacenters there. Very "Microsoft today." Take your Azure and stuff it into your NSA-monitored by-the-minute-billed overpriced sack of shit, Redmondian.
I'll run my own stuff. Increasingly, however, that can't include Microsoft. Not stable enough and certainly not enough bang for the buck. Just Not Getting It. As ususal.
Re: Typical Microsoft
"Been low carbon for years" is not the same as "no carbon". That's like saying "Microsoft has made high uptime block storage servers for years." High uptime != 100% uptime, which is a hell of a difference to the company that's suffering an outage.
Actually, you make a good point, however, that describes Microsoft's views on the matter...and neatly ram home exactly how they Don't Get It in most things.
If it isn't Nadella, it is a slap in the face of their entire customer base. He's the only candidate who will deliver what people want to buy, not what Microsoft feels it can blackmail people into giving up more than they can afford for.
Re: Couldn't disagree more
Re: More moving the deckchairs
Lying to congress isn't a crime. Lying to a court under oath is.
"...governments should do what it says on the box; govern!"
The real power in America - the Tea Party - disagrees.
You mean the American company that wants us to store "secure" data on their American cloud?
Sell me the software to run on my own servers, away from American hands. Then we'll talk. "American" and "secure" are oxymorons.
Suave sysadmins don't stay sysadmins for long. They get a job that pays real money and doesn't come with life-altering stress, lack of appreciation and Microsoft's licensing department.
For all that VMware has it's rough spots, it's still damned amazing software.
....that and Hyper-V keeps randomly rebooting on me and blowing up at critical times...
GPS *receives and processes* signals that are broadcast *by satellites*. A GPS emits no radio. It just crunches data on a time code.
How the metric fucking banana hell do you manage to turn passive crunching of omni-present signal data into a plea for pro-authoritarianism?
Christ on a bike, you lot are truly mad...
Re: I'll wait...
Problem is, Nutanix won't sell me software. They want to sell me the stack and that's bloody expensive. More capital than I have to hand. That makes Maxta interesting.
Lots of competition here.
VMware has a vSAN...sort of. it's nice to see they finally got AHCI support added in, (you know, because it's really not all that important and blame the user if they don't buy according to the HCL. Or you know, can't afford to buy according to the HCL. Or happen to think that bog standard industry interfaces that are built into fucking everything should be supported. Little things.) Despite this, the attitude presented to the hoi polloi by those in charge has left me with the square root of negative zero warm fuzzies on their ability to give bent fucks about "things used by companies that aren't the top 20%". At the moment, I'm really not predicting a huge uptake. By the time VMware pull their finger out, they'll be fighting an uphill battle against entrenched players, even with their "built in market" of ESXi license holders.
HP has Lefhand, and Lefthand is good. Unfortunately, it's priced out of the SMB space and there is a general feeling of neglect to the product. Few announcements, little rah-rah and less discussion of uptake. That sucks, because it's actually quite awesome.
Nutanix and Simplivity can simply choose tomorrow to turn their offerings into software-only vSANs as well. Nutnaix has a massively evangelical user base, many of the top minds in the field and an established presence around the world. They are full steam ahead, support multiple hypervisors and show no signs of slowing down.
Simplivity have focused on their backup and dedup tech. They view themselves less as a private cloud enabler and more as a storage play. They've got good tech, great people and a fighting chance amongst the morass.
Whichever of these companies you feel is likely to win - and for whatever reason - the addition of Maxta to the mix can only be excellent for end users. More choice, more competition, more pressure to innovate, differentiate, diversify and push the boundaries of software defined storage.
About goddamned time.
Oik! I gots me two heads!*
*I can only use one at a time.
I truly wish I was allowed to use Sie/Hir or Ser. Unfortunately, we'd be back in the same boat; it's so uncommon, the usage of it would detract from the story.
I have started to use Sie in some of my personal stuff.
I prefer to use gender non-determinative pronouns so that I can both acknowledge and dismiss 100% humanity. I don't give a flying Vista what gender, race, creed, religion or whatever "group" you are: you're all clownshoes to me until proven otherwise.
When talking about an indeterminate person I don't feel it's appropriate to use "his" or "hers." Gender determinate pronouns should only be used when a gender is known. Period.
That's like saying "he drove* from A to B."
*method of transportation not known, using a manually controlled vehicle as the descriptor "just because."
Re: Stop making me think about sex. It's irrelevant.
You're not allowed to use "their." That is something that the patriarchy uses to pretend women don't exist whilst simultaneously attempting to appear unbiased. A bunch of feminists decided that they didn't like it so they set upon a campaign to convince the world that using the plural form of pronouns was abuse of grammar - not to mention demonstrating "gender bias" - so they decided that everyone should default to the feminine pronouns instead.
In case you missed the memo this is huge in US journalism right now, and it has become "the thing" in SF tech circles as well.
Re: about God: She's black
She's black what? A poodle? A paramecium? Black hole? You're still being an "-ist" if you assume God is human/humanoid/human-like/human-aligned at all.
Of course, there's the part where God doesn't exist, but let's just set that to one side for now...
Re: Watch out FusionIO
Wow. You people don't think laterally. You turn Whiptail into a "like a FusionIO card" by making it one blade per chassis. That will then connect via the chassis' internal network infrastructure to the other blades in the chassis. The chassis-local Whiptail accelerates the local UCS nodes while also going using cross-chassis communication channels to make sure data is replicated in another blade in one of the other chassis.
This isn't fucking rocket science here.
It's also how you make the claim that "Whiptail isn't there to compete with EMC." It's not...at least not EMC's spinning disk stuff. EMC will provide you bulk storage that all your chassis will talk to. Whiptail will provide chassis-local acceleration and serve as a new tier of "fast storage".
Whiptail isn't a broadside at EMC, it's slitting Pernix Data's throat, along with it the margins that currently go to FusionIO, Micron or LSI in the form of their PCI-E cards.
That EMC wants to get into the same space is of no consequence. there are plenty of players.
Mark my words; Whiptail will evolve from a SAN into something closer to an acceleration tier. A hybrid, if you will, between Pernix and Tintri. Dangerous stuff...
Re: core components of the service, such as networking, remain critically unstable
Openstack doesn't have to be balls-to-the-wall fast and take advantage of every single feature or eek out every single % of performance. It needs to be "good enough". It needs to provide freedom from lockin and - most of all - a means to escape the "just one more license" fetish that companies like Microsoft have.
The "best" technology doesn't always win. Now go cuy in your betamax. I'm going to spin up a cloud whose software costs don't go up 15%+ per year.
Re: Still don't see any reasons to buy it @Bucky O'Hare
To be fair "runs fast, is well built and has Microsoft Office" fulfills most requirements that I have to deploy a field unit to my staff and most of my customers. All that's missing is:
1) Genuine "all day" batter life. (12 hours of RDP or 16 hours of Web).
2) A price point that is closer to $500 than $1000
Right now, if I am going to drop $1200+ on something it will be a Lenovo X230. Why? Because - while expensive - it can be equipped with an additional battery and an expanded internal one to meet the battery life requirements without giving up on the others.
So surface is close. If only they'd make the damned thing into a netbook form factor and replace Windows 8 with Windows 7...
Man, I'd love a notebook that well designed.
Re: a f*#k 'em attitude?
"A f*#k 'em attitude" is pretty standard for most developers, as this forum thread would seem to obviate.
You are arguing a point I never made and trying to change the discussion past your original assertion, which it the point I was arguing to begin with.
You asserted that the fundamental platform of standards-based browser-delivered apps is inadequate. I said it is not.
You then went on a tangent about how "so many developers are producing native apps for mobile devices."
I said "but standards-based apps are still being developed that are just as good as those native apps and continue to be supported."
I am not talking about why developers choose to be egocentric assholes that place their needs above those of their customers. I merely said that standards-based development was possible, is the superior choice for the end users and that companies should avoid lock-in by moving their applications to said standards-based platforms.
It is possible to do. It is being done even by the very same companies you hold up as producing native mobile clients and ultimately helps companies escape lockin.
Your arguments have fucking nothing to do with "the fundamental suitability of the platform".
There are many reasons that people choose one design choice over another that have nothing to do with the platform capability. As I stated before, it's a lot more about the psychology of the matter than anything else. (And the lock-in political power games played by the platform owners specifically designed to prevent companies from building cross platform apps.)
Your arguments made a claim and backed it up with bloody nothing that was related to it.
Oh, and as for "be nice when I talk to you," here's a giggle: no.
You have no more right to dictate my behavior in a forum than you do dictating my purchasing decisions to suit your personal agenda. My irritating and flagranty douchily trolly behavior is purposeful and chosen specifically to illustrate my point. I'm the consumer. I get to do what I want. You're the vendor. Do what I say or I go elsewhere. I have no reason to listen to you; on the forum, as a vendor or anywhere else. You do not compel or have a reason to expect my obedience. If you want my compliance you fucking earn it.
In fact, I have a better idea: why don't you stop wasting time on internet forums and go put some effort into actually developing things that are good for your customers and meet their needs without imposing externalities upon them. (In this case, in the form of locking them into closed platforms where the costs constantly ratchet upwards.)
I'm exactly as nice as the situation warrants. Address your actual assertion - rather than arguing past it with irrelevant dogma - and we'll be fine. If you want to argue the politics of platform selection, then start a new thread. Your assertion was about the fundamental capability. That's to do with tech, and you've provided zero evidence that the technology behind standards-based application development is lacking.
If you honestly think that the fundamental capabilities of the platform to deliver a smooth and fast experience aren't there for standards-based platforms then you haven't been paying attention for some time.
I will agree with you 100% if you are trying to limit yourself to the top-end applications requiring breaking performance. But I will disagree vehemently about the other 99.99999% of applications. Even on a moderns smartphone. For the overwhelming majority of apps, web-based is more than fast enough and has been for some time.
The fact that existing web developers don't know how to use the functionality enabling acceleration is more a function of shitty developers than "the fundamental capabilities of the platform."
AS to you "but it's *hard* to code for the differences in multiple browsers" whinge; Bullshit. I flat out don't buy it. It's far harder to recode native apps for every platform. The only way that native apps are easier than standards-based apps is if you are telling a goodly chunk of the user population to eat shit because you're lazy and you get to dictate which native platform they use. That's not actually solving the problem, that's just the developer being a dickwad.
And then you finish off by saying "well, except Google seem to have solved all of this." Which sort of makes your entire rant about "the fundamental capabilities of the platform" a steaming sack of horseshit, doesn't it?
Standards-based development in browsers is a fine platform for 99.9%+ of non-video-game applications out there. (There it's probably only about 80% ready.) Everything else has nothing to do with the fundamental capabilities of the platform and everything to do with whiny, arrogant developers who feel that the end user should bent to suit them instead of providing applications that suit the end user.
I have zero sympathy for any developer who just wants to be able to use the objective-C skills they've honed for years. They're the ones selling a product. I'll not buy it unless it's what I want.
Well, if so, that's one example amongst literally thousands of others who choose standards-compliant means to reaching multiple platforms over native apps. Facebook has the resources to write multiple apps for multiple platforms and maintain umpteen separate code bases. Most don't.
Of course, if one is a True Believer in native apps (like you seem to be) then "multiple separate code bases" isn't a problem. You just tell your users to use whatever you dictate and believe that they'll meekly comply.
Frankly, I don't put developers on such a pedestal. They're disposable. They comply with my demands as a customer or they fuck the hell off. It isn't my job to alter my business model, OS selection or device selection to meet the desires of some jumped-up code monkey. It's the code monkey's job to write what I want for the platform I want if they want to get paid.
If you're Facebook you can do that with native apps (apparently) and fuck the inefficiencies of the process. Very - very - few others can afford that.
But...wait...what's this? Can it be?!?
Facebook's primary offering is a web application using standards after all! They merely have peripheral applications that may (or may not, depending on your view) provide a subjectively "better" experience on different form factors that are coded natively.
Even the enormous behemoth that you rip up as your example of native appness still seems to believe that providing it's wares primarily through a cross-platform, standards-compliant application delivery mechanism is critical to their business. Whodathunkit?
Users are used to the "native app" style of presentation; I.E. that it has it's own dedicated window, does not appear to be in a browser, etc. This is psychology and sophistry not technological requirement.
The difference between this and a true "native app", however, is that this development is still a standards-compliant development that is portable between systems. In fact, it typically calls the native system renderer and expects it "just work" with the relevant standards.
Psychologically, users are trained to think of "native apps" as "real apps". So you have to present them as such. Realistically, however, you code them using open standards and you use internetworked APIs to communicate information. The days of truly native apps that are coded to be platform specific are coming to a close.
No, actually, it says lots about how many shitty coders there are out there. I can name you hundreds of fantastically coded browser-based apps. I can also point you at millions of terribly coded native apps.
You seem willing to over look this massive quantity of awful native apps while using a comparatively similar quantity of awful browser apps as a cudgel. All you're doing is demonstrating your own bias and inability to make side-by-side comparisons in an objective manner.
Shitty developers are everywhere.
Browsers have a lot of limitations that would be perfectly good targets. Limitations that native apps (normally) don't have. (Though those are disappearing.) "There are bad apps for them" isn't one of them.
Browsers do, however, have one massive advantage over native apps: a single set of universal standards to code to. It was what Java was supposed to be, be never was. Sure, there are some differences and some accommodation for browser quirks required, but far less than Java...and way less than recompiling your native app with proprietary APIs.
Standards-based browser-apps are inclusive; they are open to almost everyone on all devices, all platforms. Native apps are exclusive: they target only that which the developer feels is important.
A browser based app is the developer saying "I am here to meet your needs; I will work to help your business grow by adapting my application to how you work." Native apps are the developer saying "I know better than you; if you want to use my software you'll do things exactly how I say, in the environment I say you'll do them in."
Of course, all of it - browser or native - relies on your developers not being terrible. But the fundementals of the medium are solid. Have been for some time.
@Should b Working
"Surface Pro 2 called"
Then ran out of batteries. Shortly thereafter is was recharged briefly before being flung out a window because it treats desktop apps - and the majority of users - like third-class citizens.
You could install a lot of applications on the Surface Pro 2...but why would you? The mouse is a third-class input method, the OS feels like dyslexic finger painting and the battery is still shit.
Put the money into getting your apps ported to open standards and run 'em as web apps on the many available platforms that don't suck*. Windows 7, ChromeOS, Android, iOS, Bada or Tizen...just to name a few!
*Bonus points; by making your apps browse-based, they still work in OSes that suck, like Windows 8 and Windows RT.
@Bucky O' Hare
If you read The Register you'll know I don't speak nice about anyone unless it's true...but Tim isn't For Sale. I'll not say I agree with the man in all his works, but he's honorable and believes what he writes.
Besides, if you're a fan of Microsoft's paint-by-numbers OS (and Tim is) then the Surface 2 is a wonderful little machine. Had a chance to give one a quick poke and it looks to be nearly as well crafted as my Asus Transformer!
So really then, it's a question of "do you want Windows 8 or Windows RT with that?" If you don't, well, there's lots of other options. If you do...Microsoft seem to be offering a good machine.
Nothing paid-for about that.
I know you're a tech god that doesn't even need to read an article before making completely misinformed comments...but YOU'RE AND YOUR. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR OWN INFLATED EGO.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Re: We don't care how the data gets there, only that it does get there
When your car breaks down, you take it to the mechanic. If you have enough cars in your fleet you might employ a full time mechanic. Should you employ a full-time mechanic if you have only one car? Two? Ten?
The network admin is never going to go away. The number of them required, however, will diminish.
I managed to get Pistoncloud set up in about 2 hours. Azure on-premises takes an average of 2 days. So fuck your assertion with a mottled goat.
Oh, or were you trying to compare using the unbelievably expensive NSA backdoored Azure U.S.A. public version to a local, secure, minimal-margin-to-another-vendor Openstack install?
Please, do elaborate.
Azure hosted? Me likey.
Azure service provider (where the service provider is subject only to my nation's laws)? Grand.
Azure U.S.A? Hell no.
No amount of "but you can manage your own keys, see? See?!?" I ever going to make me trust the yanks. Nothing short of some pretty massive government reforms will even begin to restore my trust.
Too bad that Microsoft has decided that they'll market Azure service provider while simultaneously raising fees to punitive levels in an attempt to drive those selfsame service providers out of business. The end result is me not really trusting Microsoft at all.
Oh well: Openstack is largely Good Enough. Onwards.
I think you have a problem with your brain being missing. But thanks nonetheless!
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung