Re: >Career Path anyone?
Yes, I do. They voluntarily live in the US. Worse, in the south! What more proof is required?
5419 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Yes, I do. They voluntarily live in the US. Worse, in the south! What more proof is required?
@aahjnnot "above market rates" means fuck all when every employer in the market is desperately trying to ensure that the "market rate" for IT staff of all flavours is "poverty".
I don't buy for an instant that you can't find C programmers willing to learn R, or that you can't Microsoft sysadmins unwilling to learn Linux. I just don't buy it. Why? Because I have sysadmins and devs around the world who would be cheerfully willing to learn any technology required - and they absolutely have the background and diversity of experience to be able to pick up virtually any technology in short order - who have almost all walked away from IT due to low wages.
Employers want to pay "market rates" for fresh-from-graduation newbies that live 8 to a flat and don't own a car...but they want 10-15 years experience and a "group-oriented attitude" that boils down to "willing to work unlimited unpaid overtime and willing to never point out flaws in the manager's plans, even when they are glaringly obvious."
Building a business on picking up the young and naive, underpaying them and then burning them out like candles over the course of 3-4 years (which is what pretty much every employer seems to be into in the IT sector these days) is unsustainable in the long term. You are collectively poisoning the well; you are driving the only experienced people out there out of the industry and creating such a negative cultural perception (and rightly so!) of working in IT that "the best of the best" avoid it with a vengeance.
What kind of people would go into IT today? The pay is shite, the expectations are completely unrealistic, the hours are lousy and opportunities for advancement are functionally nonexistent.
There are a handful of positions out there paying decently and treating their staff well. Companies around the world never have trouble filling those.
If you want to obtain - and retain - IT staff then forget about "market rates" and focus on "a living wage" and the ability for your staff to eventually retire. Work on having an actual career path that includes advancement, definable goals, attainable and comprehensible job metrics along with adequate resourcing and staffing for the projects undertaken.
In other words, make IT more attractive than being a janitor. Being a janitor pays about the same most places, but they get more respect from the hoi polloi and have far fewer responsibilities.
If you think the people who live in Austin are "batshit bananas ultra-leftists" then boyo, you need to get some worldly experience.
Houston? The fuck, what? The tech action's in Austin! With the added benefit that Austin is also where the people who are not batshit bananas ultra-conservative tend to cluster...
I'm pretty handy at PHP, and I've been studying up - and practicing - on sucking less at them thar programing structures and practices. I'm probably not far from "competent" at that particular technology...at least as close as you can get, while still using PHP. But would I give up writing to be a PHP dev? Fuck no. That would be a pay cut of at least half.
There is no skills shortage. There's an unwillingness to work for chicken feed. Let the poxy blighters suffer, I say. Pay a man a living wage or get the hell off the job boards!
Now I want to sleep on a bouncy castle.
I live in Canada, eh? Solar still works just fine here during the winter. Tilt your panels and sand/snow/leaves/what-have-you fall off. Wind helps.
"Huh? Are you saying that TCP/IP isn't a success story? From its humble beginnings to where it is now, used on a scale unimaginable at it's inception, designed for a totally different user environment?"
There are far more important things in this world than commercial success. Privacy, anonymity and civil liberties are great examples. Both are things that TCP/IP has fantastically failed to deliver, and IPv6 has completely eliminated.
TCP/IP's time is past. It is time now for something designed from the ground up to ensure privacy and anonymity as a means of helping internet citizens retain their civil liberties.
"declare it to the IAEA as they are supposed to by a treay they signed (NNPT). They have been working on precision triggering of explosives, also required for nukes - and I'm not even sure if that has a civilian use"
Deep bore mining. Very important if you want to sink boreholes because you are a tiny little country and most of your resources are covered in sand and burning.
"Lying poisons diplomacy."
Hence why politics sucks everywhere you go, and has since before our species was verbal.
"and the only power that's aggressively expansionist is Russia"
Tell that to Taiwan.
Remember, China may have little interest beyond what it considers to be it's "historic range", but that's still a lot of territory, people and resources it needs to conquer to get where it wants to go. A Sino-Russian military alliance that allows both nations to "recover lost territory" is not out of the question at all.
The west looks weak; all talk, no action, and the time for the powers to start fighting over the last remaining (easily accessible) natural resources is upon us. This is why China and Russia are spamming money and aid all up and down Latin America and Africa. They're earning friends the hard way, while western powers use fear and intimidation on those same countries.
The major non-western powers are girding up for war, they just aren't quite ready to jump yet. They learned from the mistakes made by the Axis in World War II; they'll make sure to set the playing feild up before running loose on it.
There are standard munitions.
DDoS, BGP route poisoning, etc. etc. They just aren't "clever". But they work. Just like slitting someone's threat still works, a million years after we first did it.
The Chinese have a 5 megaton nuke that fits on an ICBM? How the hell big is that ICBM?
But I typed that comment in using a touchscreen keyboard via Lynx on a shell on my smartphone! THAT'S INNOVATIVE! Just like Metro on a desktop is an amazing breakthrough in productivity and usefulness! Surely there can never be even the remotest of problems with that.
...or are you admitting that UIs should be tailored for the type of input expected on the device? Because that would be blasphemy.
Hey, don't get me wrong here, I believe that Metro is innovative. In fact, I think it's a damned good UI in a lot of respects and I have a list of ways in which I wish I could make use of the Start Screen/Tiles on the desktop that I just can't. For example, the "live tile" concept is basically the "war room" display done properly.
But the Start Screen isn't a replacement for the Start Menu. It's very clumsy as an access point to your complete list of (rare-used) applications, and it's disconcerting to use it as a frequent means of getting at regular applications. I don't like full screen grabbers on a mouse-and-keyboard.
AHA; but there are places where what is an entirely inappropriate tool becomes fantastic! Multi-monitor, for example, could be made awesome because of the start screen. While the start screen isn't a replacement for the start menu it is the ultimate evolution of the quick launch bar.
In a multi-monitor environment I want to be able to "pin" the start screen to a given monitor and have it up 100% fo the time. The live tiles would present me with new information for the various applications on a streaming basis while also serving as great one-click launchers for various apps.
Where it all goes horribly wrong is in doing things like "trying to force full screen apps on desktop users" and "taking away a compact, hierarchical menu system that doesn't take up the full screen from desktop users."
Metro as a tablet interface? Actually pretty good. But on the desktop it's about as useful as a command line on a touchscreen smartphone. You can make it work, but it's frustrating and not nearly as useful as on a more approriate device.
WE'LL HAVE TO AGRE
E TO DISAGREE ABOU
T THE TYPOGRAPHY
ELEMENTS OF METRO
AS I FIND THEM RATHE
Microsoft's issue is not an inability to innovate, it's a complete inability to figure out where to apply said innovations appropriately. They just can't help themselves, literally every good idea they come up with is run through a process of "how can we use this to either lock people in to our platforms or leverage a (near-)monopoly in one area to attempt to create one in another area". They can't not think in this fashion, and it completely ruins their "innovations".
Instead of putting their best stuff out there in the manner that makes the most sense, and then competing - even with themselves - they consistently choose to apply their innovations inappropriately.
Hence my very ambivalent feelings towards Microsoft. Unlike Eadon, I don't for a second think that everything Microsoft makes is evil or bad. I have always maintained that Microsoft produces some of the best technologies on the planet, and that they employ many of the smartest people currently alive.
But the best technologies and the smartest people mean nothing if the only way you allow their use is in a manner that is counter-intuitive, frustrating and ultimately actively detrimental to your customers. Microsoft's management, from their licensing to their partner relationships to what they choose to allow in their OS and app design (such as the ability to turn off Metro/get back the start menu or turn off the ribbon/get back the menu+toolbar) is what is earning Microsoft enmity.
Newer is not always better. Novelty is not, of itself, valuable. Your "new thing" must be demonstrably better than the "old thing", and this is something that rabid fanboys of any company never seem to get.
Microsoft makes a lot of new things. What they don't do is make using those things easy, affordable, intuitive or rational. (See: VDI licensing.) Until they pull their head out of their ass, I will continue to mock them and their implementations, even if I respect and admire much of their technology.
I have no idea whatsoever how you feel Oracle innovate at all, or are worth any sort of praise, admiration or even consideration whatsoever. Oracle either have you by the balls and you are a hostage that will pay them anything, or they don't. If they don't, why the metric fuck would you put yourself in that position, given their track record?
Just change the UI to something better suited for touch screens. Like maybe a commandline interface, or a pixel-perfect windowed UI. Microsoft's unquestionable success with Windows 8.excellent has shown us what an amazin effect this can have on sales.
And whrn you run out of features after that, there's always a ribbom bar!
Who needs useful additions when gimmicks, nomenclature differentials, splitting one product into two and UI changes can all be used instead? Then jack up the licensing, and sue your own paying customers for not obeying some exceptionally obscure or maddeningly irrational and obtuse bit of your 150 pages of lawyerese.
Money will rain from the sky!
Don't forget to work in "the cloud" and subscriptions. That means more money!
Do not, under any circumstances actually innovate, tablet makers. If you do so, those lousy peasants will learn to expect it. Innovation is costly. You margins will fall. Learn from the PC market, indeed! Kick anyone who doesn't agree with your "vision" to the curb! Get 'em by the short and curlies and then twist until money falls out. The mass market doesn't matter; you can always Oracle the fortune 2000 to success!
I think you just described the million IOPS Micron all-flash server SAN setup that they assembled for the show, running Maxta on top.
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
The cloud is ready to handle every workload, for every customer, and it's cheaper for every size of business. There's an Anonymous Coward in here ever day who keep telling me so. Are you tell me that this fellow - and Microsoft's own marketing department - would lie to me?
I am deeply concerned.
" That is if they want to keep those customers."
Microsoft is the world's premium supplier of Contempt as a Service. They don't keep customers. Customers keep Microsoft. Or Else.
Funny, IBM run 80,000 Apple OSX systems and they haven't imploded. Google run a similar number.
But hey, sure, OSX isn't ready for business use. Yeah, sure, youbetcha...
As a general rule, the Cryptolocker people always unlocked when paid. They earned that reputation, at least. Actually, come to think of it...those bastards are more reliable than Windows...
What good is a Xeon CPU when it sits idle most of the day? What good is an Atom when you can't feed it enough RAM to even make hay?
ARM promises to be what we seem to want: gobs and gobs and gobs of RAM with fair-to-middling (but not stellar) compute.
Wake me when Intel is shifting 20W Atoms that can handle 1TB of RAM or when the "uncap" the desktop/1P CPUs so that I don't need 400w of idle silicon in order to spin up enough VMs to make testing useful.
In the meantime and between time, these ARM beauties look to fill a very important niche that Intel has chosen not to. If you don't cannibalize your own products, apparently ARM will...
Windows 8 sure isn't...
"No. Those things work because of awkward hacks"
Who the fuck cares? Not the end user or the SMB. We don't care if it's harder for developers. There is 15 years of documentation on how to deal with that, and there are lots of free and cheap tools and libraries to help to do so. Cope.
On the other hand, there are no viable solutions - let alone cheap or (heaven forbid) free - to solving the problems introduced by a dogmatic approach to NATless IPv6.
You are demanding the majority pay a significant tithe in inconvenience and infrastructure/application overhauls because you're to lazy to learn to use extant libraries and techniques to bypass NAT.
My sympathy for your position is the square root of a negative value.
So all you have to offer is dogma, religious belief and assertions. No actual functioning solutions, no value for dollar and no hard timelines. You won't even put your name to your claptrap so we can hodl you to the wishy-washy tripe you shovel.
You really are an internet hippy. Get off my goddamned lawn and don't come back until you've cut your hair and have something of value to offer.
What's even more hilarious is that the blog you link to has the individual being interviewed agreeing with me. Network Prefix Translation is the solution that will see us through. If other solutions become universally viable, then and only then will we look at transitioning wholesale. But block-shifting from IPv4 NAT-PT to IPv6 Dogma edition is fucking batshit insane.
Because the two protocols are completely incompatible. Every attempt I've seen to do what you suggest is best described by the phrase "slouching towards Bethlehem".
There has to be a temperature at which flash sublimation occurs without combustion. Every hydrocarbon has one...
You could try sublimation. I mean, then the engineer would expand to fill his container, but he'd be a fluid, and theoretically pourable.
"If you were stuck in the desert, would you rather see a horse or a camel approaching?
The analogy with IPv6 is perhaps not so bad."
If I'm an enterprise with virtually unlimited resources, IPv6, with all it's foibles seems a great solution to the IP address exhaustion problem.
If I'm the other 80% of companies on earth, or virtually every consumer on earth, then I'd far rather the IPv6 with Network Prefix Translation solution because that solves the problems I'll face in the most economic and simple fashion. I don't care about the needs of enterprises or software developers or the problems they face.
Most of the world uses horses to get things done and they work just fine. A camel is great in the desert, but doesn't have the power or capability of a horse in virtually any other situation.
The world uses IPv4 with NAT today and they can game, use VoIP, and every single other application that IPv6 end-to-end religious nutters whinge about just fine. The horse plows the feild and ensure their family is fed.
Along comes a camel salesman saying we all need to shoot our horses and implement IPv6 without Network Prefix Translation because camels are better in the desert. The English farmer peers through the sheeting rain at the camel salesman and asks that one important question:
"why should I?"
The think IPv6 purists don't get is that there is an alternative to IPv6 + religion. That alternative is IPv6 - religion. We can have all the benefits of IPv6's address space and the benefits of Network Prefix Translation by just telling the camel vendor he's batshit fucking bananas and driving him - and his camel religion - into the sea.
Your solution is exactly the one I griped about. It is absolutely reliant on DNS to function correctly, and requires tossing out any application that can't handle on the fly readdressing or multiple IPs. You either end up facing a single point of failure in DNS or significant expense redoing virtually every single fucking application on your network.
Worse than that, your solution isn't just regular "preserve end-to-end at all costs", you're touting DHCPv6 as the means to salvation here too! Unbelievable!
Maybe what you've got there will work, once every single device out there supports IPv6 in a manner that complies with the RFCs in question. AND when we've all abandoned our millions of dollars worth of investment in existing applications and recoded everything to suit the New Black.
But, being honest now, when are you expecting that to occur? How many days/weeks/months/years/decades from now will we be at the point that there are no more non-compliant devices and no legacy applications that can't deal with your preferred solution for multihoming?
In addition to the above, please detail for me exactly how your proposed solution provides superior value for dollar and return on investment versus deploying Network Prefix Translation, bearing in mind that - as a business owner - I please the value of the ideological purity of the end to end model at exactly $0.
Size your solution to the 80% of businesses on the planet: 50 to 250 users. Work in that for the next 20 years these companies will be running workloads on site that they will want to host to the rest of the world in a redundant fashion. Assume that these companies are not American, so they won't be using ISPs that will allow BGP on SMB accounts, and they won't be comfortable using the public cloud for everything.
So go ahead and bottom line it for me. Where is the business case for the solution you propose? And - in dollars and cents - show me how it will benefit me versus Network Prefix Transation? Make your case well enough and I'll publish it with commentary as an article.
Otherwise, you're just a bag of hot air, espousing dogma and presenting no real-world solutions.
And IPv6 works very well for the places it was designed: Academia, test labs and enterprises with more money than small nations.
It should also be noted that the Camel is ill suited - and non-present - in the majority of the world, where the Horse was the animal that prospered...and ultimately diversified to fill a great many horse-shaped ecological niches. (Though we could get into a good debate about three-toed versus two-toed ungulates here...)
For $150, I can buy two of the things and keep a spare on the shelf with an identical config. Worst case scenario, turf the dead one and plonk in the replacement.
Besides which, those $150 dual-WAN routers are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20th generation technology at this point. They are at the point of "it's virtually impossible for even a junior admin to fuck this up, because guides to programing or at least configuring your own from open source components are fucking everywhere."
I still do encounter IPv6 router advertisement daemons with multiple bugs. They aren't anywhere near as baked yet.
Because my sources say that the way the DPI widget works is thusly:
1) Streams enter DPI widget
2) Widget determines where various protocols will go
3) packets are vomited into appropriate route.
If the DPI widget - or some intermediate chunk - is "full" thanks to 512Kday, then it is entirely possible for one specific protocol not to work while all the others do. (Thanks, "traffic management"!) Of course, I don't have "official" confirmation of this, but it was laid out for me in such a manner that it seemed entirely plausible that both issues had a single cause.
" kind of weird that it took el reg over 24 hrs to write about it? If you had people contacting you for 12 hrs it would of been nice to see an article earlier :)"
Deeply sorry. I was busy dealing with the fallout of it for my clients and at the same time hadn't slept in two days because I'm trying to get this booth demo built before it has to ship to 'Frisco. To be perfectly honest with you I felt that it was just plain easier to send feelers out to people smarter than me to verify my assumptions than to try to force my sleep-deprived brain through the mental gymnastics of working out all the details myself.
I'll try harder next time.
No, if you really want to know what we - the people- want, look up Network Prefix Translation.
Full bore overloaded NAPT is - and let me get the proper invective to hand here - "fucking clownshoes". There's absolutely zero rational requirement for it in IPv6. It shouldn't be used. Period.
What there is a requirement for is network prefix translation. This is a very simple 1:1 mapping of an internal address space system to one or more external IPv6 subnets. This allows for instant renumbering, ISP fail-over and more without breaking end-to-end irreparably.
Is end-to-end, that sacred holy of holies broken? Yes. Is it broken in a meaningful manner? No. The 1:1 relationship means that we can easily code around it.
Whether you like it or not, network prefix translation is the natrual compromise and it will be what is implemented on a large scale. Get used to it. There's no room for dogma in IT. Only actual solutions.
You can still "traffic manage", even if you aren't peering into the sessions. It's still rude.
I don't disagree with any particular point, but there are some problems that are out of the techies' hands:
1) IPv6 is asstastic for anyone excepting weathy enterprises and backbone providers that don't have the sorts of concerns faces by the under-1000 seat crowd.
2) "The business" is generally not ready or willing to invest in replace what works just fine today with a more expensive thing that will hopefully prepare us for the future.
3) Pretty much everyone who isn't already wedded to IPv6 is really just hoping that the ivory tower types will capitulate, we'll get our IPv6 NAT and nobody will have to actually change how they do things.
As for "it's a little late to keep banging on about the problems" I heartily disagree. I've been banging that drum for the better part of a decade, and so have many others. The issue here is simple: do we - the majority - accept the dogmatic implementation of IPv6, or do we tell the ivory tower types what to go do with themselves and implement a NATed version, with all the benefits - and downsides - that it entails.
That war is emphatically not over yet. It will be decided by hardware and software availability as well as adoption and general practice. Not by RFCs and snarky internet disdain. All the powerpoint slides and wringing of hands in the world won't make people believers, nor will it make them behave how you want them to.
So we're all sitting here staying at eachother across the neutral zone, waiting for someone else to make the first move. Meanwhile, ISPs are dragging their feet, as are consumer gadget vendors.
...and the Ivory Tower types offer nothing but dogma...and no solutions.
Your comment is itself evidence of how intractable this issue has become. I raise real world issues that don't have practicable solutions for the majority of businesses and individuals and you all but accuse me of going out of my way to lay on the rails and withhold "progress". As though I am somehow not doing my "civic duty" by encouraging people to bite down on the dogma and take one for Uncle Sam.
Well, I don't know about you, but even if I were inclined to close my eyes and thinking of England on this, my ISPs don't even offer me things like "BGP for SMB accounts" that would allow me to solve the problems in the dogmatic fashion. Nor do my apps support on-the-fly renumbering.
So what are the solutions? Hmm? And why should we all just ignore them in the spirit of camaraderie? It seems to me it's a hell of a lot easier to punch the prickly ponces in the paunch and do the One Thing They Decry.
They aren't My People, so I'm down with that. You?
So your solution to the tried, tested and true $150 dual-WAN IPv4 NAT box is a new, expensive solution that requires:
1) Someone to know how to configure it (because SMB versions don't exist)
2) The router advertisement daemon never to fail
3) All applications to be able to cope with renumbering on the fly with zero errors
4) DNS to work without flaw in order to cope with the renumbering
5) BGP advertisement and management so that anything I'm hosting locally can be accessed form the net.
And to top it off you threw in a "supply and demand" argument which is an ivory tower way of fobbing the problem off as belonging to someone else, without solving any of the issues to hand.
So you have no solutions. Only dogma. What you demand that everyone use to suit your religion is demonstrably worse for this very critical use case than what went before, but we are expected to just suck it up without complaint...why exactly?
I believe my inclination is not "kowtow to the brethren" but say "up yer jacksie" and just use NAT anyways.
Wibbly wobble wubble. SOLUTIONS, jacksie-baby. Not dogma. Can you handle it?
Edit: additional bonus points for SLAAC, which makes the entire infrastructure absolutely reliant on DNS, most likely under the asinine premise that DNS will always work in a "real man"'s setup. That's grand. No chance of managing and maintaining your infrastructure when the DNS goes down, or the stupid router robot eats it's own face.
Pay no attention to the daemon behind the curtain! Practical implementation concerns are "just details" anyways, hmm?
I still don't see a viable solution for renumbering/WAN redundancy. I see lots of dogma. I see no solutions.
Or do you want to trot out how none of that is your problem, and it's up to everyone else to pay (and pay and pay and pay) to meet your religious requirements one more time?
I prefer concrete, affordable, and currently applicable solutions. Ones that work for the 99%, without dismissing the needs of the 99% as "irrelevant".
Nyet. There are so many fiddly little agreements, so many stupid little routes put in for political and financial reasons that the basis of routing on which the internet was founded - get the fucking packet there in the most efficient manner possible - seems to no longer apply. At least not for everyone, and certainly not all of the time.
I'm investigating exactly that. The big question then is "why do we have some sites where all protocols work except a specific few?"
I suppose it's possible that, for example, RDP (and not just to 3389, but all RDP!) is being sent to a DPI system and that hitting the 512K limit has screwed up routing for that protocol. I'll buy that as a possibility, but doing DPI on RDP sessions is really, really rude. I wonder if this didn't have some sort of cascade effect on DPI systems beyond just the basic routing issue.
Aha, but what good is cloud computing if the network to gain you access is down?
Rogers, Bell and Telus are fine...but anything that would transit the Shaw network due to routing or peering is pretty much blackholed. Which means the Canadian internet is pretty much borked.
"Not to mention that Chrome is spyware by design."
So is windows.
Now excuse me, I need to search for my private documents on my local network, but have that all reported to Microsoft along with my username, e-mail address and password so that they can include Bing results.
Who the fuck are Honey Boo-boo and Duck Dynasty?
"I'd say if more than 10 distinct accounts are Googling a name in any given day then its probably someone famous."
By that barometer I'm famous. Which is rather obviously untrue. I think your metrics need revising.
You're absolutely right. I apologise to the cholera victims.