* Posts by Trevor_Pott

6173 posts • joined 31 May 2010

Nutanix digs itself into a hole ... and refuses to drop the shovel

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Where is storage review - or any of us - going to get the money to buy a Nutanix node on the open market? Also, you do realize that VMware will sue you into oblivion if you publish test results that they don't approve of.

I tried to work with VMware. My lab is here. I built much of it in order to test Maxta and other HCI vendors. I tried to get permission from VMware to test VSAN. They didn't want me to test on VSAN unless I replicated their internal configurations exactly, including CPUs much faster than i could possibly afford.

I told VMware that I couldn't do that. Money was a very real issue. I was subsequently given a not-at-all-subtle warning against YOLOing testing on VSAN.

Now how am I, or Storage Review, or any of the other analysts supposed to afford to buy a Nutanix cluster? Or EVO:RAIL? Or SimpliVity? If the vendor doesn't play ball and send a unit in for testing we just can't do it. (Unless they are software-only. Most of us have or are building HCI-compatible labs that can do software-only solutions for multiple vendors.)

Nutanix and VMware are the HCI companies that are hard to work with regarding reviews and testing. The rest have proven to be amazing. (Though to be fair, Nutanix has a great relationship with Storage Review that they don't seem to have with many others, so go Storage Review!)

Make of that what you will.

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

We’re committed to working with independent third-party evaluation labs like Storage Review to compare our solution against any hyperconverged product using comparable hardware and a comprehensive and representative testing methodology.

The current generation of methodologies does not adequately represent how hyperconverged solutions perform in real-world customer environments. We feel strongly that utilising outdated test tools and methodologies would not provide customers interested in hyperconverged solutions with relevant and indicative data.

As indicated by Lukas, we’re building an open, comprehensive test suite for this category that we feel will help customers better understand the performance of hyperconverged solutions. We’ll demonstrate it at the Nutanix booth at VMworld and will release it in September so anyone in the industry can use it.

In the meantime, we’ll continue talking to Storage Review and any other third parties about working together on a review that will benefit both the industry and customers evaluating hyperconverged solutions.

Bullshit. Bull fucking shit. Bullshit of the highest order. Liar, liar pants on goddamned fire.

Maybe you are building a test suite, but it sure isn't "open". Open would mean that you included the community in the development process and worked with other vendors in the space. I can absolutely believe you're cranking out a test suite that will make Nutanix look amazing, but is it going to test your weaknesses as well as your competitor's strengths?

Look, Nutanix, you've been a pain in the ass to even try to engage with to get reviews done, though that isn't to say I don't appreciate being allowed to use a cluster in your remote POC lab for a week to test some of my own workloads. It was a start, but given the vitriol of the debate with VMware, it isn't enough.

I realize I'm small potatoes, but I've been entirely willing to work with you to come up with a viable methodology that both you and VMware would agree to. I can get the rest of the industry to agree to play and you know it. I've even offered multiple times to do the testing (or rally the troops) for free. Ther are others who can do so as well.

Now, as stated above, I'm a completely irrelevant small fry here. There are bigger names with bigger followings who command more money than I. People like, oh, Storage Review. Or you could pick Howard Marks. Or The Other Scott Lowe. Or any of a dozen trusted, highly competent and capable analysts or vExperts who have reputations for independence.

You haven't done this.

Now, you're not alone in this. VMware are a bunch of knobbly ponces refusing to play ball here too, but the rest of the field is absolutely not giving independent testers the run around. SimpliVity, Maxta, Scale...frigging NodeWeaver for $deity's sake. You are being out-legitimized by an SMB HCI vendor who is just passing their 100th customer!

I don't care if you don't think I'm independant enough, or that guy is, or that other guy over there. Pick one. More than one, preferably. Let the community know about it. We'll all jump down Chuck Hollis' throat and make the bugger send his stuff to the same party. I'll work on the other vendors personally and we'll finally get both a standardized set of tests for HCI agreed upon by all vendors and a baseline we can all work from.

It was cute for a while that getting independent reviews was "tricky". New market. We get it. But you're a behemoth now, and HCI has moved from "product" to "feature". It's not new. It's not sexy. And it's time to quantify, compare and educate.

Nutanix, you and VMware are holding back the entire hyperconvergence space with your constant back and forth shitfighting and the bipartisan refusal to simply get this crap solved in an objective manner. There are bigger issues with HCI than performance. We need to address those and that takes a focus on education, not bickering.

Remove head from sphincter. Both of you. And let's please get on with the business of making storage, compute and networking better for everyone.

16
3

I, for one, welcome the rise of the Infrastructure Endgame Machines

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Terminator

And? So? Why do you think that gets you a job?

Companies have hundreds of operations nerds today. Why does "customizing an IEM" or even "periodically updating the automation for legacy and paleo software" require hundreds of systems administrators going forward?

Once the infrastructure can largely take care of itself, the old software is automated, and developers are making the new software with automation built-in and control of the infrastructure that software runs on through APIs....why do they need more than 4 people to do what had ben done by hundreds?

Someone has to do maintenance and update runbooks. I absolutely, 100% agree. So that's 3 shifts of 8 hours a day and one extra body to cover in while you rotate the other three out for vacations and training.

That is what is under discussion here. The technologies that will allow going from 100 operations sysadmins to 4. It's the technology that is going to mean that instead of SMBs relying exclusively on VARs and MSPs handling IT as consultants until they get to about 50 seats you'll see SMBs be able to avoid hiring sysadmins until they are 250 or even 500 seats. The VARs and MSPs will eb able to handle many - many - more seats worth of servers across their customer base with far fewer administrators.

There will still be a need to have end user helpdesk support. That's seperate from IT operations. There will still be a need for developers - the number of devs will explode. There will be a massively growing need for security and compliance professionals.

But the days of getting paid to watch blinkenlights or create users in some wretched piece of paleo softtware are coming to a rapid end.

unless you are absolutely the best of the best of the best and you can do architecture work you're going to be shit out of luck as a systems administrator. And with so many sysadmins hitting hte market as redundant, the downwards wage pressure is going to be extreme. Those 4 guys kept around from a department of 100 are going to be paid peanuts.

If you think I'm wrong, then by all means, plow ahead.

0
3
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Thanks for the info and intel for phishers and phormers of novel agents

IBM has evolved SoftLayer into their first IEM” …… rather than “IBM has evolved SoftLayer into the first IEM”, for the latter is surely one of those known unknown things

You are right, your version is clearly more precise to mine. Pint to you.

Such prognostications about the future of economies and financials is what the likes of Mark Carney and governments do all the time to fool themselves

Don't disagree. I believe that's covered in the preamble where I say, essentially, "so I realize that by making predictions in public I am setting myself up for future humiliation if (and maybe when) this all proves to be utter bollocks". I know I'm sticking my neck out.

That said, I think every now and again we need people to take that risk and talk about where things are going. This allows us to all have a think about things and then have discussions. Is the scenario presented possible? Is it likely? What are the implications? Do we like the scenario presented?

If we feel the prognosticator is right, how can we adapt to best take advantage of the changes discussed? If we like the changes discussed, how can we encourage the future to unfold in this manner? If we don't like those changes, how can we try to alter the outcome?

I have a visibility of IT as a whole that few people have. By and large, it's my job to get that visibility and I pay for it in endless briefings and presentations.

I am good at seeing patterns. Tracking thousands upon thousands of variables and assembling the jigsaw puzzle of possibility. This is what I see coalescing out of the spinning fragments of effort from dozens of organizations and thousands of engineers, all working separately but (unknowingly) towards similar goals.

There are a lot of unknowns - known or otherwise - but IT is actually a fairly predictable industry. It's run by nerds who rather like logic, after all. ;)

0
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

This for one.

Here is another worth reading.

What I discussed in the article itself - and in associated articles - is more than "just a hyperconverged solution", which you seem focused on believing I'm talking about. It's more than just VMs. It's the ability to consume applications through an application store/virtual appliance library/etc.

Legacy applications may need care and feeding, but that whole style of application design is going away, and fast. Cloud native application development models are the norm amongst younger developers and there are rapidly becoming more of them than there are of us.

Developers are largely able to maintain infrastructure on their own. They are being trained to code in monitoring, make failure-tolerant applications, and interact with all infrastructure subsystems from disaster recovery and backup to storage.

Right now, today, and for the next five years or so, there is a lot of money to be made automating legacy software. But once that's automated, it's mostly done with. Entire teams of sysadmins and specialists can be wiped out and replaced with a single maintenance drone as the new applications are developed against infrastructure that is addressable by API.

Developers will blossom in the datacenter of the 2020s. Operations is already dead, it just hasn't accepted it yet.

Security will blossom in the datacenter of the 2020s, and if operations don't convert from their existing specialties to security, they'll be out of a job.

In large enough or niche companies there may be room for teams of operations admins. But in most companies - including most enterprises - the operations team circa 2025 will be a fraction the size ti is today. The developers will explode in size. The security teams will explode in size. The operations teams will consist of the proverbial "man and a dog".

And yes, the first IEMs will start rolling out by 2020. By 2025 enterprises will have finished reorganising their IT teams such that operations functionally no longer exists. By 2030 IEMs will be cheap enough for the SMB, and so much new software will exist that SMBs can run this stuff on their own, without nerds.

What I think you don't grok is that how applications are build has changed. It used to be that automation, high availability, backups, disaster recovery and so forth were all done by operations teams. This is increasingly not the case. New applications have this stuff built in, and this is the model of design being taught to new developers.

Tomorrow's applications won't need the sort of care and feeding that today's do. They will just need (relatively) stable APIs. We'll spend the next five years automating our legacy software, 5 years after that realizing that operations is not doing anything for the money we pay them and then it's "man and a dog" time.

Meanwhile, one at a time, those legacy applications will be replaced.

Operations is already dead. But feel free to bet your career on its continued viability if you so choose.

0
5
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Who or what could ever be trusted that much?

Nail on the head.

I can tell you how the pieces are aligning. I can't tell you yet who will win, or whether open standards (read: OpenStack, most likely) will win. I suspect that if two proprietary IEMs appear that are mostly interoperable (where "interoperable" can be achieved with some minor conversion of automation/orchestration runbooks between the IEMs) then enterprises won't care. They only ever needed EMC and Netapp to play off one another, (or Oracle, DB2 and SQL)...why would they need more than two, possibly three IEMs?

Interesting few years ahead...

0
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Except that an SDI block I describe is more than just hyperconvergence, mate. Maybe you should read the article and the links.

There's more to what's under discussion than just a new way to do virtualization.

0
4
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Sorry, but I must disagree. The old specialties will go away as they are simply no longer needed. Technology is adding ease of use as a core competency, even at the infrastructure level. That is removing the need to have all these niche infrastructure specialties running about. You really just need capable developers. They can make competently designed infrastructure go.

The only other specialty most organizations will need is SecOps. Though I suspect most won't believe they need SecOps until breaches inevitably happen to them.

1
3
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Some of that is explained here. But most of it boils down to this: no matter how much packaged software exists there will always be the need for custom software that meets the very specific needs of a given company. Even if that "custom software" is little more than parsers or translation layers that take one set of data from one application and feed it into the next.

I'd go so far as to say that not only will demand for developers increase over the coming decade, but that they will become essential to larger small businesses and an unquestioned presence in all midmarket companies. Much like systems administrators had been for the past 15 years or so.

IEMs are really about doing away with the need for dedicated ops teams in all but the largest or most niche outfits. It is a lot harder to get rid of developers.

Operations teams keep the lights on. They build the digital edifice of the business, but it is the business that must occupy that edifice and make profits.

Developers are the business in a very real way. The code they create encapsulates the business logic. They automate mundane tasks. They replace entire departments with code. They can even - and this will become far more common far quicker than you think - program robots to do mundane physical tasks.

Once the building is built you don't need builders. You might keep a maintenance guy around, but how much better for most businesses to simply lease the building and let the landlord handle the maintenance? Or, if they own the building, hire a maintenance company to keep it ship-shape?

We are very rapidly approaching the point where operations simply won't be needed by most companies. I do not forsee a point in my lifetime where developers will face the same problem.

4
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Utopia may be just around the corner, but it seems like a mighty ugly pill...

Isn't it always?

All the work week be done on tablets and internet connectivity will be fast and reliable.

Internet connectivity is fast and reliable for a significant chunk of the parts of the world that have enough money to entire tech companies. 5 years from now it will be better. 10, 15? The first IEMs will start to emerge around 2020. They will probably start to make their way to the SMB space for the first time in 2025. They will be ubiquitous by 2030.

The pieces are all there for anyone willing to see.

Will compliance managers also be replaced by devops, I wonder...

SecOps, actually. I have a piece on that here.

1
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: mainframe

Plus ça change...

2
1

Hacking Trump: Can we not label web vandalism as 'terrorism', please?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: TED talk

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe you are projecting your own personal beliefs and morals out and thinking "everyone" agrees with them. Maybe "everyone" your particular geo does, but yoru statements don't reflect measurements of changing opinions.

More to the point, your arguments are functionally moralistic. "The world should be allowed to pry into interpersonal relationship issues because sex is involved and one person in a relationship might have an issue with how the other person conducts their affairs." That's bullshit. Bullshit of the highest order. If ti was an argument about wearing sandals versus sneakers nobody would try to say that anyone else had a right to listen in.

And yes, I am not going to listen to you on this. You are arguing from a position of prejudice rooted in nothing more than an ardent affirmation of sterotypes and your belief that others share your views. I've actually done a fair amount of research into this topic - and recently - as part of some large studies I'm engaging in on cultural differences in western nations.

Your social mores here are absolutely not shared by everyone. More to the point those who don't share your views on this are not some extreme fringe minority, they are a substantial - though not yet majority - % of the population. Even in the United States.

As religious influence wanes, so does puritanism about sex. And as puritanism about sex wanes so does the belief that people outside your immediate relationships deserve to know who you are having sex with.

And you know what? That is the moral truth of things. Religion used sex to control populations for generations. It is not in any way moral to continue with this, or to try to keep sex and sexuality titillating and taboo.

So no, you won't be convincing me. Mostly because your arguments stem from a sense of morality that I simply don't share...and I have done enough research to know that there are millions of others across the western nations who feel as I do. My moral and ethical viewpoint on this is emphatically not uncommon.

It may not be the majority view (yet), but it is shared by enough people that it cannot be considered invalid. So I'll stick to my original affirmation: the nation has no business in the bedroom of its elected officials, nor does the nation have any business in the bedrooms of the people.

And I'll fight against any attempt to make (or keep) our society one of puritanical voyeurism. If you wish to think ill of me for that, you go right ahead.

0
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: TED talk

No, that's bollocks. In just about any functional marriage, each partner would be properly fucked off about the other cheating on them. Sure, you can find me exceptions - but those are very much outliers. Marriages are substantially always damaged when infidelity occurs.

Sorry, but nope. Marriages have moved past the bizarre religious ideals of monogamy for a great many people. Maybe not the majority, but a very significant number.

Run the numbers. Look at the *fraction* of marriages that are truly open. It's a statistical insignificance. Most marriages where there is infidelity end in divorce in a relatively short space of time. Whether that's healthy or not is for someone else to decide - but it is a fact.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers. They certainly don't line up with any I've seen. Now, infidelity is the most frequently listed reason for divorce, but it has been repeatedly noted in research surrounding divorce that most of those relationships were about done anyways, and the infidelity (or claims thereof, in many cases it's hard to verify) are used to deal with legal issues surrounding divorce and/or to milk the ex-spouse dry.

I am incredulous that you've written that. Look at the history of failed marriages - a vast proportion are due to infidelity. I cannot believe you are naive enough to believe that more than a handful would not care about an extra-marital affair; substantially all cuckolds/cuckqueens really do care, and I am frankly astonished that you could believe anything else.

Your inability to see beyond your own prejudices is your own problem, sir. I have actually researched this topic at quite some length. The number of marriages that don't fail after infidelity are actually quite high. The number of marriages in which infidelity is tacitly (if not openly) tolerated is also a lot higher than you seem to think.

What's more, when marriages do dissolve it is rare that it is anywhere near so simple as "X found out Y was cheating on them and divorce ensued". A) Usually there are all sorts of reasons why the infidelity occurred in the first place that boil down to "marriage in trouble". B) Infidelity is quite often tacitly (if not openly) tolerated until something else in the relationship goes rather wrong.

You seem to personally believe quite strongly in monogamy. That's fine, but I think you need to realize that not only has that not always been the case, people in our culture are a lot more diverse in their attitudes and approaches to marriage than you are portraying.

What's more, you still haven't laid out a rationale for why the fact that some individuals choose to be obsessed with monogamy gives them the right to care whether or not others are, or to pressure those others regarding their marital habits.

To be quite blunt about it, poking your nose into the bedchambers of others uninvited should be of itself illegal, no matter who the individuals in the bedchambers are.

You will not convince me otherwise.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: TED talk

If we are going to live in a generally-monogamous society - as most, but not all, seem to claim to want - then sleeping with someone who is not your currently-designated partner is going to end up being cause for blackmail. That's the point about blackmail - it covers any topic you'd rather not come to light.

Except that the only reason for him not to want it to come to light is that his political opponents would use it against him in bullshit politics involving religious whackjobs and their backwards-ass beliefs. Dollars to doughnuts Hillary knew, didn't care, or had made her peace with it. The lady is exceptionally bright and knew what she was getting into when she married someone that ambitious.

For that matter, I'm pretty sure Hillary has played the field herself. She's had more than ample opportunity, and good on her if she did for living life.

So if the President sleeps with someone other than his wife, his family has a right to know? That will likely lead to difficulty in that family, so said President will probably not want them to know. And straightaway, you have a blackmail situation.

Yes, I think his family have a right to know. You know, a lot of marriages are open these days. And a lot of marriages are marriages of convenience. Especially those amongst people in positions of power. I think it's really narrow minded to think that spouses of those involved would be so "crushed" by the "betrayal" of sowing one's oats that the whole thing constitutes blackmail.

Adultery has been going on since the beforetime. And it's time we realised that monogamy just isn't what we're coded for. Some people want it. Fine. Bully for them. But those who live a life that's a bit wider in scope should be able to do so without it becoming political ammunition or cultural blackmail.

If the spouse (or the kids) have a problem with you sleeping around that's between you and them. it's no business of the public at large.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: TED talk

As the leader of a nation, anything that might open a leader up to blackmail puts the whole nation in the firing line; as such, the nation does have some business knowing what that leader is up to.

That we have a culture where "who you sleep with" is somehow black mail is the fucking problem. Not who someone sleeps with. There is no reason for whom you choose to sleep with to be black mail.

The only people who have any right to know who the president sleeps with are his family, the family of his partners and the secret service (as it is their job to protect all parties). Period.

3
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: It is simply direct "fair comment"...

The point about being President is you are supposed to see threats coming BEFORE something nasty happens.

Uhhhh....what? Presidents aren't psychic. They're human. And fallible. And they screw up just as often as any other fallible human being. Their advisers are fallible human beings relying on other fallible human beings for their intelligence and assessments and so on down the chain.

Presidents don't have to see around corners. They have to be able to accept the responsibility that when they fuck up people die. Sometimes a lot of people. They need to be able to live with that, to do the best they can to prevent it and to make amends when they inevitably do fail.

4
1

Netzpolitik spy journo treason case stalls, chief prosecutor told to quit

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Needless surveillance is treason

What the fuck am I reading?

An accurate summation of the total body of Adam Smith's works. I wouldn't expect that you know them, as given your posting history you seem quite focused on the "selected works" that drive the very pro-market anti-liberal American-style conservatism. But the OP is not wrong.

Adam Smith did in fact warm ardently, stridently and often about the dangers of capitalism and tried to ensure that we build in safeguards against what he saw as inevitable issues and dangerous excesses. Too bad that part of Smith's teachings are so conveniently left out of the education systems of certain places. This willful ignorance has cost us all more than we'll likely ever be able to count.

0
0

Boffins turned off by silicon switch to TILTING MAGNETS

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Bunch of Tantalum in Canada with reserves proven out and environmental assessments done. Just need investors to make a hole in the ground and light up the refining facilities.

0
0

Sysadmin jailed for a decade after slurping US military docs

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

but that doesn't mean that the NSA didn't have to work at it a bit.

Not nearly enough.

If they were able to crack it at all then it was insecure.

1
0

Vision? Execution? Sadly, omission and confusion rule Gartner's virty quadrant

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: In the market for two years

It's common knowledge that Nutanix biggest customer (US Dept of Defense) accounts for the majority of their sales.

Common knowledge is out of date.

And no, I can't cite my sources. Things told to me in confidence stay in confidence. And if you think I'm buying into the PR hype you don't know a damned thing about me.

I am PR hype's antiparticle.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: In the market for two years

Curious that you think that. Nutanix is rapidly becoming a big player in the storage and virtualization space. I write about the storage and virtualization space.

Saying I talk about Nutanix too much is a bit like saying a writer covering Development brings up Github too often, or that someone covering consumer software talks about Dropbox too often.

So, okay, maybe you don't like Nutanix. Fine, fair enough. But they're going to be around for a long, long time, and they're going to be pretty important for a long, long time. You'd better get used to hearing about them.

Now, if your implication is that I somehow personally like Nutanix (or care about them/their success) you would be mistaken.

And for the record: while VSAN is moving in modest volume, EVO:RAIL is not selling at all. It's dead. Done. Finito. Put a stake in it, VMware fucked that one up good.

EVO:RACK has some chance of succeeding against the other traditional converged vendors, but EVO:RAIL is a great big red herring and a colossal failure.

Nutanix is not. There is demand. They're selling quite well. And they are, without question, the leader. SimpliVity is a (distant) number two.

You might not want to accept reality, but reality doesn't require your acknowledgement.

0
0

Intel doubles its bounty for women and ethnic minorities

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Incentive, not enforcement

As for 'For now, sadly, it seems we simply have to accept that finding a way to tackle pervasive subconscious prejudice against women and visible minorities will have causalities.' would have resulted in no feminist movement etc as those groups would have just accepted the status quo and not prompted change.

*sigh*

Look: feminism - at least in the western sphere of influence - has already won the overt battles. I don't disagree at all that feminism needed to exist as a movement, rally the troops, march int eh streets and get all uppity in everyone's face. I applaud those women (and men) who sought change and fought viciously against some very entrenched power structures, many paying a heavy price along the way. I consider them to be brave, even heroes, and they should be role models for all of humanity.

That said, that part of the war is over. Legal equality is (for the most part) won. What remains now is "hearts and minds". It's a different kind of battle, and one that will take a different kind of approach.

You are confusing history with the present; past misdeeds, events and battles with the who and how and why of today. Sadly, that's very typical of the movement.

After a time, warriors know nothing but fighting. And rebels usually become just as bad as those they sought to displace.

It's time to work on reintegrating the warriors of feminism into the rest of society, and on working the "soft skills" portion of the equality angle. That's a longer, harder, more subtle battle.

One that can't be won with the twin blades of guilt and shame.

1
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Why should it matter if I have a genetic anomaly or not? Plenty of people don't, are large, and have no more realistic control over their weight than I do. Nice to see you doubling down on your prejudice though. Great to feel superior, isn't it?

Have a super day.

4
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: fat people are the only acceptable group to hate

Some of it is that we (humans) don't want to understand.

And that actually is a choice. And it's a choice that I don't have a lot of patience or compassion for. Ignorance is the precursor to prejudice, and prejudice presages douchebaggery.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Thanks for making my point for me, mate. You don't actually know what you are talking about. Despite this but you are so completely and absolutely convinced you do.

There were people who were absolutely positive that black people were inferior, too. And they'd argue that point up and down, considering anyone who said a single thing different to be clinically insane.

As for "just shifting my behaviour", oh, yeah mate, I'll get right the fuck on that. Thanks for telling me something I haven't heard 100,000 times before. You've really managed to open my eyes. I'll have absolutely no problems losing weight no, there's no barriers in my way. It's nothing but a choice!

Maybe one of these days you'll actually learn about the lovely genetic anomaly I have. It's spectacularly rare. Not that it would matter to you. Because it's a choice.

Maybe one day you'll learn about the ins and outs of clinical depression, which by the way, if a hell of a lot more all-encompassing than a case of "the blues". Not that it would matter to you, because clearly that's a choice too.

Choices, choices. Just will yourself to be normal!

You are a walking stereotype. You are the ignorance I abhor and in your absolute certainty the prejudice that destroys both compassion and dignity.

That is a choice. There are many things you could be, and I am appalled at what you've chosen for yourself and those others around you.

3
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Don't believe the hype.

One is subtle reverse discrimination one is overt. There are way better ways to go about this. If there is a finders fee for brains, it should not matter what those brains are wrapped in. If you want to encourage women in tech, you should work on feeding the pipeline (on one end) and addressing cultral issues in a sustainable fashion on the other.

A "boobs bounty" is just not cool.

5
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Hypocritical

Sorry, but male - especially white male - privileged does exist. It's the part where we can go to a job interview and not thing "am I going to not get this job because of my gender or skin colour?" It's the part where we go through customs and don't have to thing to ourselves "am I going to get locked up for bullshit reasons?" It's the part where we don't get drugs planted on us during a stop and frisk, or tased to death for looking at a cop wrong when pulled over for speeding.

White privileged isn't a club card. It's not the stonecutters with a secret door to a room filled with wonders where the Illuminati plan the future. It's the ability to live our lives without having to think a hundred times a day if about our safety (physical or sexual). It's the ability to go days, weeks or months without thinking about whether we're being discriminated against.

Our privilege is that we don't have to put up with being dismissed out of hand because we can't possibly know what we're talking about, based on nothing more than gender or colour. That's white male privilege, and unless you're completely paranoid, you live it every day.

I agree with you 100% that class plays a far bigger role in today's society than race or gender. If this were a longer conversation I'd throw many other factors in there too. That's sort of what I've been getting at in these comments: this isn't a conversation that can only be had by discussing one dimension at a time.

Those of us who have it good need to learn how good we have it. And we all need to work on treating everyone equally, and with respect and dignity. Regardless of the group to which the person belongs.

That's the multi-dimensional thing. We're all part of a lot of different groups. So maybe we should stop begin dicks to identifiable groups so that, in the fullness of time, people will stop begin dicks to us.

Obey Wheaton's law: don't be a dick.

Really, there shouldn't need to be more to it than that.

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: fat people are the only acceptable group to hate

Fat people aren't the only acceptable group to hate; they're the easiest, and the least likely to be able to achieve any sort of equality any time soon.

The interesting part is that while you have successfully listed a series of identifiable groups who have been traditionally on the receiving end of prejudices most (if not all) actually have both a number of laws and fairly strong movements that are working on equality for them. I think it's worth disassociating those who have traditionally been subjects of discrimination but are winning the fight from those who have traditionally been subjects of discrimination and don't stand a prayer in the near or medium term.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Incentive, not enforcement

We all have problems, mate. In this case, some groups have won the right to have theirs considered important, that's all. Some of us haven't. Some of us may never. And some of us are vilified, marginalized and pilloried for things other people did.

The issue isn't nearly so black and white as you're painting it, nor is affirmative action objectively "moral". It might be moral, given the context of your other beliefs (and if you are unaware, or simply don't care about other issues affecting other groups). It might not be moral,, given the context of your other beliefs (especially those who strong believers in meritocracy).

It's clear that the old ways aren't the path forward. There does absolutely exist subconscious prejudices that many individuals engage in during the hiring process, even if they attempt to guard against it. That said, the constant march to homogenize corporate culture to be as politically correct as possible and pretend everyone is exactly the same does push out individuals in other groups who can't function in that sort of environment.

People are complicated. To advance some we need to restrict others. Telling everyone how we much behave and what we must believe pushes those who aren't normative to the fringes...even if they are decent, well meaning folk who don't want to discriminate against anyone.

But that is a difficult narrative, isn't it? It doesn't fit a simplistic blame model and it doesn't make for easy villains.

I hope future generations of newly marginalized groups succeed in wining their own rights to be heard in future generations. For now, sadly, it seems we simply have to accept that finding a way to tackle pervasive subconscious prejudice against women and visible minorities will have causalities.

How unintended you view those casualties to be depends on how cynical you are.

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Do you really, really think that a company will choose someone with lower qualifications for a job?

Yes.

Are they that stupid?

It's not stupid. It's cost/benefit. Optics matter. You don't need everyone to be a rock star. If they're competent "enough" then there can absolutely be greater value to the company in picking an individual with great optics over one that will deliver that extra few % of oomph.

3
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Pint

Re: Hypocritical

Thank you, Esme. I hope you one day understand just how much a single positive comment can mean to someone. Especially someone with self-esteem issues who feels they're fighting an uphill battle (in this case, for equality and men's issues.)

I can't explain how much it means. I lack that skill. But she can.

Cheers!

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Hypocritical

Men have a position of power. Like it or not, we were born into it. the social justice warrior whackjobs don't get a hell of a lot right, but there is such a thing as privilege, and most of us refuse to acknowledge it.

I hate feminists are they have come to be portrayed by the loud (and typically extreme) portions of the movement. They are anti-men. They don't want equality, or merely to "tear down the patriarchy", they want to subjugate men. To sideline them.

Extremist feminists want to control men by striping them of what makes them men by using guilt and shame as weapons to convince every man alive to actively suppress his instincts. They won't tell you how that is supposed to be accomplished. But they demand we all do it.

Men's rights activists are the opposite side of the coin. The loudest - and best funded - groups are blatantly misogynist. They want to return to traditional gender roles. They want ot preserve not simply masculinity (which I describe as a recognition of and even celebration of our gender-based instincts) but the culture of machismo that has been so damaging to both genders.

You ask what I base this on. I base this on a long, miserable, depression-filled search fro some form of identity and community belonging. I felt - and I feel - that mainstream feminism is massively damaging to the notion of equality. I felt - and I feel - that mainstream feminism is want me, as a man, to be ashamed of being a man. I felt - and I feel - that mainstream feminism wants me to feel guilty for what other people did - and do - as though my gender makes me associated with (and guilty of) their crimes.

More importantly, I felt - and I feel - that there are very real issues with today's culture, laws and social norms that are highly discriminatory towards men.

So this drove me towards men's rights groups. ON the face of it, they seem like great people. They talk about the things that bother me. The social and legal ills that I fear. When there are jut men in the room (or non-threatening, submissive women) they mouth platitudes about equality and seem like great guys.

But in every single case they are, as a group, absolutely awful to actual women. They are dismissive, condescending, demanding, domineering and hostile to any women that questions or challenges them in any way.

The men's rights groups have a very thin veneer of civility that takes next to nothing to scratch through. Once triggered, they come out swinging and what they say is appalling.

Over and over and over again they dismiss the very real concerns of women's groups. They don't try to find a workable compromise or a middle ground, they demand a return to previous norms: the ones that ensured men were dominant and kept them there.

Virtually every men's rights group I've investigated - and I've looked into most of them in North America - essentially refuse to admit that society was fucked up when men were in charge of things. They refuse to admit that changes are, in fact, required if we are to achieve and then maintain a culture of gender equality.

I don't buy that I should be guilty of the sins of someone else's grandfather. But by the same token I would be a fool not to admit that the society of those times was less than ideal.

This lead me to The Good Men Project.

These guys are far down the road of "men need to compromise who and what they are". I agree with that. But I'm not sure I agree that they're too far. They aren't merely doormats or patsies for the ultrafeminist loudmouths. The Good Men Project is trying to find a workable balance between the sexes that is actually sustainable in the long run.

This will require that men change how they think about our position in society. It will require that we learn, and then teach methods and techniques of controlling our instincts in public.

It also means that we need to acknowledge that our instincts are different from those of women. It means that we need to create socially acceptable outlets and that we need to build a society that doesn't attempt to suppress masculinity in favour of some fales (and ultimately extremely dangerous) docility.

Men are hunters. We are predators. We have a natural instinct to establish hierarchies and defend our place in them. We feed on adrenaline and competition, but we also care deeply for others and are capable of the most tender acts of compassion, joy and love.

All sides of both genders need to be accepted. They need to be celebrated. They need to be understood, controlled and given release.

This is what The Good Men Project seeks to do. They aren't perfect. They aren't even - in my opinion - currently on the right track. But they are the only publicly visible group of men trying. More importantly, they're the only ones trying to achieve this "new masculinity" in conjunction with women, rather than trying to simply dictate to them what the social norms of our gender are and how we will behave.

Men's rights activists are far - far - too wrapped up in "us or them". Women's groups - at least the loud and well funded ones - absolutely are guilty of the same sin.

"Us or them" is a false, idiotic and dangerous dichotomy. We are different, but equal. The same, but with uniqueness. We are two sides of a coin and we have to share this world together.

Maybe we should focus our energy on trying to do just that, instead of trying to draw arbitrary distinctions that serve only to aggravate and inflame.

Being a man can still mean loving fighter jets and loud cars and things that go boom. It can still be about the adrenaline kick and competitiveness and a little recreational chest thumping. It doesn't need to be about "us or them". It doesn't need to be about exclusion. And it doesn't need to be about hate.

4
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

No, I mean fat. Fat people are the currently accepted group to hate on. Normatives believe that fat people can just wake up one day and choose to be skinny. That anyone has the willpower, that everyone's metabolism is the same, and that fatties are all just weak.

This leads to acceptable discrimination in the workplace. Hell, it leads to acceptable discrimination everywhere. That - in my opinion - is not okay.

Look, I'm fat. I'm massively fat. I'm so massively, overwhelmingly fat that I have my own event horizon and photons that stray too near don't escape. So I think I'm a little bit qualified to talk about this.

It's perfectly acceptable - in my books - to say to a person "you're so fat we need to charge you for two seats" on an airline. When you get to be my size you take up two seats. Fucking period. In fact, if you're of that size - and believe me, the crushing self esteem issues and overwhelming depression mean that we fucking know when we're that size, thanks - means that, as a fatty, you should have bought two seats to start with and saved everyone the grief. Like it or not a goodly portion of the "being enormous" is your fault as a fat person and you need to deal with the extra monetary expense of being that large.

That said It's not okay to build your airplanes such that the armrest between those two seats doesn't move out of the way. Fat people exist. They're a significant portion of the population, and if you design your chairs, airplane seats and so forth such that they are unusable by fat people you're a goddamned asshole. If you want to be an asshole in that coffee shop you own, that's your right. But mass transportation is a whole separate issue and the damned well should be regulations to ensure that all people, regardless of size, disability, etc. can use it.

A fat person my size isn't going to be physically able to do the job of a high-speed door-to-door mail carrier that has to cover dozens of square kilometers of houses every day. That's ridiculous and fatties shouldn't apply for those jobs. Physical fitness is a requirement of that position. It's a rational requirement of that position, and it's completely and utterly ridiculous to expect an employer to buy you a scooter or some other such nonsense.

That said, there's nothing that prevents a person of any given size from being back office staff. Or a computer programmer. Or any of these other jobs that don't involve a fair amount of physical labour. So discriminating against them in hiring because you don't like how they might make the company look is complete bullshit and - in my opinion - absolutely grounds for a lawsuit.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Fat people do have to take some responsibility for being fat. That said, for most of us it isn't a choice. It's a disease that we struggle with, and it is a complicated and intricately linked mishmash of physical, psychological and neurochemical issues that allow us to get fat in the first place and then keep us fat, no matter what we try.

Some parts of society should be open to all people. No one should be excluded from cultural events, mass transportation or finding employment because of how they look, their origins gender, sexual orientation or so forth. But humans aren't good at thinking like that.

Humans are tribal. We want to identify with a group. A clique. A collection of no more than about 100-125 people. We need the ability to exclude others. We want the ability to use guilt and especially shame to establish our dominance over others. We need to prove that we are superior, they are inferior and we should be in charge/get the best mates/command the highest jobs/receive the accolades/consume the respect.

You can't hate on people of colour. You can't hate on women. You can't hate on gays or transgender or pretty much any other identifiable group. One by one they've become protected by law. One by one they've earned the right to equality, respect and dignity.

But not fat people.

Fat people are a socially acceptable target. The narrative that it is 100% their fault is an easy one. We can claim they choose that way of life. If only they'd accept good, clean, protestant ideals like suffering for their entire lives they could be just like the rest. If only they were of purer genetic stock. If only they worked harder to make more money and afford better food.

Most people in North America don't even acknowledge that mental health issues are real. So I can't quite say that we discriminate against people with those issues. We simply pretend they don't exist. They they're faking it, doing it for attention, or that they could simply will themselves healthy if they really wanted to.

Because of this, it's impossible to explain things like decision fatigue to the average North American. It's impossible to explain things like Lectin allergy, neurotransmitter imbalance, dopamine deficiency or weight issues as they pertain to ADHD, depression, anxiety or dozens of other disorders.

We can't have those conversations because we - as a culture - believe that all of that is "just bullshit". We believe mental, physical and socioeconomic issues play no role whatsoever in obesity. It's nothing but personal choice and weakness.

Because of this, no matter how much you, personally, dislike the fact that some fat people try (in vain) to achieve some semblance of equality you simply don't have to worry that it will happen in your lifetime. It won't. A few noisy people who make the news that the nation can make fun of them aren't actually changing a goddamned thing.

In order to address obesity in a rational way we have to go through generations of education, primairily on the realities of mental and psychical health issues. Stigmas around mental health need to drop away. A better understanding of neural and neuroendocrine systems needs to be fundamental to the culture as a whole.

We aren't there. We won't be there a hundred years, if ever.

Fat people are the soft, squishy, easy target for hatred and discrimination. They are legal to discriminate against in almost every way. And they will be for a very long time.

So don't worry. Your position atop the social pyramid is safe. You're superior. We're inferior. And it'll be that way for as long as you live.

10
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Hypocritical

@Craigness: bullshit.

Look, I'm an egalitarian. I'm both anti-feminist and anti-masculist. I believe both genders are different, but equal. I can even get into some pretty protracted debates about the actual biological differences that arise from hormonal deltas between the genders and how this appears to drive (and amplify) the natural instincts of both genders. Those instincts do, indeed appear be different. (For example, males seem to respond to and requie hierarchy far more than females.)

I believe that masculinity is worth preserving because it is who males are. Our instincts, our biology, our psychological requirements to live a satisfactory life, etc. You cannot simply will that all away because masculinity makes some people uncomfortable. Both genders have to come to terms with the fact that there are differences, and that these should be cherished and celebrated while maintaining equality between the genders.

That said, there are damned few men's rights organizations that aren't batshit crazy misogynists. Most are outright abusive towards women's groups.

I'm not saying that there aren't some extremist feminist groups out there that purposefully set about to push everyone's buttons. There absolutely are. But most men's rights organizations go after even the egalitarian feminists or egalitarian masculists.

The men's rights movement has been compromised. It is corrupt from within. It is populated by conservative angry white males who want nothing more than to preserve their positions of traditional power and to spread hate. Those guys need to be kicked in the testicles over and over and over again. They're worse than the extremist feminists because they are using a position of power to keep people oppressed rather than fighting to free their people. They're douches and I have zero respect for them.

But there are egalitarian men who are working towards positive gender relations whilst still attempting to address the very real men's rights issues that exist. Issues such as maternal preference in custody battles and cultural norms which view men as disposable (especially in military situations).

The Good Men Project is not perfect. I agree that they work a little bit too hard to downplay masculinity. But they are the best option available for men seeking to address cultural gender grievances whilst working towards equality.

I wish there were better options. There aren't. Every time someone tried to have a rational discussion about this topic extremists from both sides jump in and the hold thing goes to shit.

So The Good Men Project deserves our support. They've walked a careful line of keeping the support of the majority of the feminist movements while advancing the cause of men's rights. They have had to make some compromises to do it, but they are the best chance we have of actually seeing the very real issues of men's rights actually get addressed.

If what you want is traditional gender roles where women are subservient to dominant males, too bad. That isn't returning. Hopefully ever.

With luck, however, we can retain elements of masculinity that interoperate with our instincts and hormones in a workable fashion while achieving both an egalitarian society and addressing extant prejudices against both men and women. Isn't that the goal we as men should all be working towards?

8
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Questions

What quotas? Quotas would be illegal.

Fine. Targets then. Same shit, just technically one is non-binding policy and the other is. Doesn't matter. When the word comes down that "the workforce should look like X" this is no different in practice than dictating that the workforce must look like X".

7
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Hypocritical

White males did get organized. Unfortunately, those who did so were awful people and the current "men's rights" movement is filled with unrepentant assholes. More's the pity, because there are very real issues regarding men's rights that need to be addressed.

So far, the best source of "not batshit crazy assclown-infested fuck brigade" organized men's rights folks I've been able to find is the Good Men Project.

5
3
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Indeed, this should be the case

We should have. We didn't. Now we're in a pickle as the furor over "incorrect" diversity reaches a fever pitch.

5
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Not if they're fat, white and male.

6
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Questions

If large companies like Intel drive for politically correct staffing levels (see: not representative of either the actual training pipeline nor the population at large) where are smaller companies supposed to find individuals to meet their quotas? What are the actual targets? Are they set based on simple perpetual ratcheting or population at large ratios? What are these large companies doing to solve the pipeline disparity issues?

So many questions.

18
1

SDN: It's living the dream – and just using what you've got

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: SDN is not Openflow

Cisco's proprietary abortion made out of lock-in and shame doesn't count. I'd just like to make that clear.

1
0

Sales veep, staff log-off from cluster-cache upstart PernixData

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

I wouldn't write them off entirely. They have great technology with multiple fairly easy routes for pivoting. I guarantee you that with minimal (we're talking a few months of code + QA) they could have an excellent new product line that would actually sell quite well.

The question is not one of capability. Pernix has a lot of very, very smart people working for it. The question isn't even one of money; the extant product is good enough to attract another round if they are willing to pivot.

The question of Pernix's continued existence rests entirely on how large and uncompromising the ego of the founders is. FVP is the "baby" of the founders. They are incredibly emotionally invested in it. They risked a great deal to see it brought to market.

Worse, Pernix hired expensive bodies and put their personal and professional reputations on the line defending it's validity...and in some cases they laid into - or allowed staff that work for them to lay into - other companies and even other individuals for daring to challenge the basic assumptions upon which the product was built. Anyone who asked questions, suggested that read only server side caching might be better, HCI might be better, that there could be economic or practical issues with Pernix's implementation...these people were publicly pilloried and ridiculed by some of the most powerful and prominent members of the virtualization community.

Members with some fairly direct ties to Pernix.

A pivot is technically possible. But a pivot is also a very public admission that Pernix were out of bounds in how they treated others and in the cocksure and aggressive attitude they espoused.

Some people can accept this. Either they're sociopaths and simply view the whole affair as "just business", pivot and move on...or they are decent human beings, apologize and move on. Either way, there are some clear paths forward that allow a pivot without there needing to be life-altering stress or compromise of personal dignity.

But for some people, this simply can't happen. The emotional investment into "their baby" is too great. A pivot simply can't be accepted, and they'll ride that thing right into the ground.

As a writer, I sympathize. Editors kill my babies all the time.

I don't know how the people in charge of Pernix will play this. A pivot absolutely is needed. There are obvious and non-obvious directions that could make them a stupid amount of money and grab a lot of market share while allowing them to retain and reuse a lot of good code.

Will they do it? That remains to be seen...

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

1) Pernix is a stopgap item to solve point issues between refreshes.

2) It's a feature not a product.

3) All the complexity of a hyperconverged offering, but doesn't store your data.

Gee, I wonder what's going on...

0
0

Do you speak NFV? Time to go back to school and learn

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The one thing..

It's not like anything else is really using the CPU...

0
0

It's Friday! Had a good week? It was probably better than Seagate's

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

ST3000DM001

Pay dearly for that, Seagate. Pay dearly.

1
0

Hacktivists congratulate Daily Show's Jon Stewart via Donald Trump's website

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Donald Trump

Once you've got a certain amount of money it's pretty easy to turn it into more money. But few can do it as efficiently as he has.

It's not hard. Hire some maths nerds. Give them funds to play with. Hire some jocks. Have them break the nerds if they don't produce.

Suddenly, you're richer.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: if his handlers sit on him long enough

Maybe that's why Google bought Boston Dynamics...

1
0

Will flash save the data centre? Don't spread your wings yet, Vultan

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Dara?

The quality of a story is the content, not the spelling. Do you judge people by how they look too? Egads.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: from innovation to progress

1) Tier 1 data is not "the whole datacenter"

2) Good luck finding enough flash to do even tier 1 in a large enterprise.

3) Most "Tier 1" workloads are fine on 15K SAS, so "Tier 0" is now the new term for "needs flash".

And you still haven't addressed how, exactly, we're supposed to physically manufacture enough flash to meet the tier 1 demands of the world with flash. We simply can't do it today. We cannot do it. And that's even if we turned all our fabs over to 100% flash production and completely ceased manufacturing new DRAM!

Sorry mate, but you're living in a fantasy world. Some companies can get away with flash across the entire Tier 1. Most can't. And only the smallest of the small will ever have a 100% all-flash datacenter.

This isn't going to get solved until after we're well into post-flash technologies.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Dara?

No, you're being a pedant. And an ass. Nobody likes people who behave like either. There's a corrections feature on the article itself. Worth using if you feel so offended by typos you need to curse out an author.

0
0

ATTACK of the ZOMBIE SATELLITE: Run radio hams, run!

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: 'kin typical

This world would be a lot further ahead if instead of complaining about the differences

I celebrate my nation's differences from the US of A, thankyouverymuch.

0
0

Forums