Feeds

* Posts by Trevor_Pott

3636 posts • joined 31 May 2010

These mobile devices just aren't going away. What'll we do, Trevor?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: So, what is MDM?

...really? This has to be explained? I mean, I realise that some of the newer terms and stuff have to be described while they are still relative unknowns...but...MDM? Do I also need a link for virtualisation? Or RAID? Genuinely curious here...I was under the impression MDM has been "a thing" for long enough that we all knew what it was...

0
0

Bromium launches security-through-virtualisation tech in the UK

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Ooooo

I need to play with this some; sounds interesting.

1
1

Perish the fault! Can your storage array take a bullet AND LIVE?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

I think different tiers of data can sustain different RPO. With something like Storage Profiles in VMware that can be made easy. I do not, for example, care overmuch if my webservers get reverted to yesterday; they grab their info from a centralized storage location with is disaggregated from the individual VMDK of the PaaS VM itself.

You just gave me a great idea for an article. Much appreciated.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Great article

More than just flushes; serious, click the link on that. (Or rather, it is about flushes, but it really gets in to how ZFS does them and what mechanisms it can use if it "owns" the disk. Also how to configure ZFS so that the damned thing works. It's a truly great link.)

Also: I cannot claim complete credit on things like links. I have a great research team to back me up. It helps to have additional eyes to check things over.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Pint

Re: Great article

\o/

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: in short..

Use the Queen's proper English, strong and free. Canadian, eh?

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Literally bulletproof storage

I didn't mention StoreVirtual because I have never had the opportunity to play with it or even see a demo. It's on my list.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: RAID 5 shouldn't even be named unless living under the bridge

Have a related SATA series all you want, but your SAS drives had damned well better be of superior quality to the SATA drives. If the SATA version of your SAS line is something you are only willing to cover with a 1 year guarantee then I do not have warm fuzzies about the non-marketing-bull MTBF on your SAS line...

1
0

Feeling lucky, punk? Storage biz crams virty PCs into RAM

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

+1 to marketing for the witty response. I'll check out the resources mentioned in the hopes they answer my question. I'm hoping we're not simply being asked to substitute one bottleneck for another...

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

RAM bandwidth. It was already a thing with virtualization at the levels we can get with today's servers. With this...? What is the memory controller made out of? Unicorns?

1
0

Foundering OCZ snatches megabuck lifeline in white-knuckled grip

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

OCZ absolutely must do two things to survive:

1) Make products that don't suck

2) Convince the entire IT industry, all of whom have been badly burned by previous OCZ products that their extant line doesn't suck.

That means making a product line with a very low failure rate and seeding those drives amongst relevant businesses, tech journos, "thought influencers" (read: respected bloggers within their IT niches) and so forth. It means being able to explain what is different about this round than the last and it means publicly admitting they fucked up. Without the admission, we can't believe they've changed. Without solid, third-party verification that their stuff isn't absolute crap anymore, we won't even consider buying their stuff.

Sadly, based on my experience, the above is so completely against their corporate culture that these guys are just flat out doomed. Honesty and transparency are not their shtick. They would never back third-party analysis of their equipment when marketing and outright falsehoods could still be tried.

I have no officially had over 80% of all OCZ SSDs (400 some odd at last count) seen in the field die on me. Samsung sits at about 4% (of 2000ish) and Sandisk hasn't had a loss in the admittedly low sample of 3 disks. MY 8 Kingston Hyper-X SSDs continue to soak up every bit of punishment I can throw at them with no failures, but its early days yet.

But I have replaced one Intel drive out of over 8000 in the field. Intel 510s and 520s. 1 in over 8000. SSDs? Intel or bust, gentlemen. Intel or bust.

3
1

BYOD: Bring Your Own Device - or Bring Your Own Disaster?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Pint

@Dale Re: Whoa - massive unsubstatiated assumption here

The issue there isn't technology nor the technology choice. It is people. If you have have people who work best when they are told what to do, how to do it, what to think and how to think it, then a company-mandated top-down approach to everything works best. Sadly, for shareholders everywhere, we're not all drones.

We cannot paint "BYOD" with a great big brush and make assumptions that apply to all (or most) companies. Each and ever company is going to be different based on the people, politics, extant infrastructure, finances available and yet more that is involved. What works for enterprises won't work for SMBs. For that matter, what works in the UK won't work in the US; the cultures are completely different!

Hell, I could give you some damned good educated guesses on why the cultural deltas between Edmonton and Toronto would affect the uptake and success of BYOD deployments to various sized businesses (and in which sectors.) You could provide some hard figures from your research. We both have dozens of anecdotes from sysadmins, end users and CIOs we've talked to. Me, mostly in North America. You, mostly in the UK.

What Tim and Phil really need to do is lock you and I in a room with a video camera, a case each of our favourite beer and let us go at it on this topic. We've had some epic debates on this, you and I, and the results from those conversations end up the same each time: it's the people, stupid.

"Are productivity benefits really a given with BYOD?" No.

By the same token: "Are productivity benefits really a given with any technology, ever, regardless of provenance?" No.

There is also a whole conversation to be had about "applies to some people" versus "applies to the majority." Just because BYOD doesn't make sense for some (or most) doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for others. This stupid internet thing and these stupid "actually capable consumer devices" are raising the expectations of the hoi polloi. "One single policy on endpoint technology applied indiscriminately to everyone from the stock picker to the IT staff to the field sales staff" just doesn't work in 2013. Not everywhere, anyways.

We need to start a BYOD fight club. :) Cheers and beers, good sir! Next round's on me!

0
0

VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus: An El Reg deep dive

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Profile Driven Storage

Sir, SSO backs on to AD if you should choose. Works like a charm.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Fault Tolerance

Stratus bought Marathon

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: too complicated for small to mid size businesses

I deploy VMware Essentials Plus kits to all my SMBs. A separate feature, looking at VMware for the SMB market is currently under construction.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

You are 100% correct. I sincerely apologize for the screw-up. The hell of it is, I even knew that, and had it flagged for change, but missed it in the final version. 15 lashes with a wet noodle have been applied and the change made.

Cheers.

0
0

Review: Supermicro FatTwin

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Not worth the power they use?

Fairly simple; I may possess the hardware for these other servers outright, however, they are expensive to power. FLOPS/watt on them versus the Fat Twin units means that were I to go out and buy a Fat Twin to replace the three racks of older gear that I have I would pay for the faster and more capable Fat Twin in less than 6 months simply out of the power savings.

To me, that means the older systems aren't worth the power they use.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Virtualization?

Haven't tried Eucalyptus. VMware ESXi 5.1 works like a hot damn. Openstack too. Server 2012 works as well.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Funny you should ask that. The reason this took so long to come together was that Dell was originally supposed to ship me a C6220 to test. We were going to to a head-to-head; showcase each unit it isn't own article and then really tear into each of them with an array of tests. Dell backed out at the last minute and so I was down to testing the Supermicro against the rest of my lab.

Kind of sucks; Dell's switch was quite a nice piece of gear. Supermicro and Dell went pretty head-to-head on that, hard to say one was a clear winner. I would have been interested to see Dell's C6220 in action, especially when it came to the resilience of the power plane and its thermal responsiveness. So I sadly cannot answer you regarding the C6220. It looks nice on paper; but we all know how misleading that can be.

What I can say is that Supermicro's stuff has come a long way in the past 10 years. More critically, they seem to be putting a lot more time and effort into making their units able to withstand high temperatures (so that you can run your datacenter hotter, thus saving rather a lot of money) and into completely over-engineered power systems. Not only are the power planes resilient, but Supermicro makes their own PSUs; and they are crazy efficient.

If and when I get equipment from other vendors, you know I'll run it through the wringer. From server stacks like the Fat Twin to the humble USB stick; I've got a test lab, let's break this stuff!

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: It's not the hardware itself...

It has the same level of R&D as the big players. And they HCL. And they certify. And....pretty much everything. Supermicro isn't exacy "just a whitebox vendor" anymore. Yes, they do sell units on a whitebox basis...but they also have excellent support options, especially if you buy big enough to be doing whole datacenters through them. Might be time you talked with tbem about the options, rather than rather than rely on assumptions that - it seems - are years out of date.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: what luck

Pretty orthogonal, actually. I had to work for six months to get a unit to review. It was worth it. Great bit of gear. If you have some ideas as to tests you'd like me to run, please, let me know! I'll run any tests that I reasonably can. :)

1
1

Mmmm, TOE jam: Trev shoves Intel's NICs in his bonkers test lab

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Terrible review

And you're wrong. Any network card for which you have good, low-level access can be reconfigured to send non-standard Ethernet frames. It takes a little bit of bit-bashing on the driver creator's part, but you can turn a regular old network card into something that will make FCoE frames.

What you cannot do is send those frames over a standard ethernet network unless you have similarly updated your switch. To be clear: you are not going to be getting firmware from D-link to this, but you can usually get your higher-end Cisco stuff upgraded to handle the non-standard frames. This means that you can do FCoE point-to-point only unless you invest in the right infrastructure (which should include CNAs, make no mistake) but that you can make a NIC speak FCoE frames if you tinker with it enough. (Nobody does it because what would be the point?)

The fact that you've never rewritten a firmware or driver (or done any real bit-banging) doesn't mean others haven't. Please bear that in mind the next time you wander around accusing people of things.

You'll also note that while I said that a regular network card could be made to speak either protocol, I only discussed iSCSI as being in in sort of practical use without a CNA. And now we've had this little conversation in the comments so there is even more information available. Internet!

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: So it's better supported than vPro in desktops then?

Yeah; the networking team's drivers are a cut above most. I don't have anything good to say about the old IGPs (though I admit to not having given the Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge gens a whirl) and the vPro stuff has always been a little on the flaky side.

I was at one point going to do a full review of the Intel vPro stuff. Alas, I could only get hold of the vPro stuff in my Ivy Bridge Eris 3 nodes; I couldn't get my hands on any of the mobile vPro stuff, even for a month of testing. So I can't really test the fullness of the offering and abandoned the project. :(

Ah well; I have a SAN to build this year. That should be an interesting thing...

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Unhappy

I wish. I have nothing but sadness regarding Intel IGPU drivers and Linux. Nothing but sadness.

1
1

Intel beckons SMBs aboard Big Data bandwagon

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Well...exactly!

The idea that Hadoop is "cheaper" is a myth. Hadoop solves the "expensive server" problem by spamming a whole bunch of shitty consumer-grade hardware at the problem. If you do the research into the subject and talk to the right people there is rather a lot of dissention as to whether or not this actually results in an over price drop.

You see, the expensive databases (Oracle, DB2, etc) are really tightly coded the hardware for performance. They aren't perfect, but they are a hell of a lot more efficient than Hadoop. Plus, you generally get away with doing what you need to do on a single (or smallish number) of exceptionally powerful boxes. This drives down your power, cool, space and networking bills by quite a bit.

You can overcome some of the inherent limitations with Hadoop if you have shit-hot programmers, but as you pointed out, SMBs don't. What's more, as the traditional DB folks are being kicked out of the higher end positions thanks to Hadoop actually being useful (and cheaper) when you get to petascale, the cost of the expertise required to do Neat Things with traditional databases is plummeting.

I have on hand a handful of system that could theoretically be Hadoop nodes. They would be exceptionally shitty Hadoop nodes and they wouldn't come anywhere close to providing the compute, IOPS or network bandwidth required to do the imagery analysis discussed above. Assuming, of course, I could find a dev to program it.

The ability to use consumer hardware doesn't mean it's cheaper. It means it scales out in a more linear fashion. When you have a small scale budget, limited space, limited cooling and big requirements, Hadoop just isn't the thing.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Well...exactly!

But most businesses do better if they have analytics. Chicken and egg. So:

Step 1) Collect all the data you can

Step 2) Start interrogating it

Step 3) Alter your busienss/marketing practices based on what you discover

I have a dozen companies Microsoft could use for case studies. (Were they willing to front some hardware! I don't have hadoop-class anything lying around.) That said...a lot of these companies already do analytics. Using PHP. And MySQL. Dear god, I am about the move the FIRST of these SMBs to an SSD for the MySQL database! Standard SQL databases will hold pretty much all the data these companies actually use.

Hadoop?!?

You've got a long way to go to sell me on the necessity of that. Sure, the same company we're moving to the SSD for the MySQL database has potentially 100TB of data per year coming in. Most of it, however, is imagery. Can you even imagine what you'd need to do image-based analysis to extra things like "what are most people taking pictures of" etc?

Yeah, so we stick to sales data, geographics....if we get really ambitious we could pull metadata from the images and analyse that. But where's the ROI in pulling apart the images, scanning for "pictures of babies, pictures of landscapes, pictures of cars" etc. Will knowing what people are shooting produce more of a revenue bump than the cost of the nuclear substation and small shopping mall we'd need to crunch the data?

Hadoop for SMB? WHY?

0
0

Let software take the strain off your data centre

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Tim Phillips

:P

0
0

Drilling into a half-decent gigabit small-biz switch... from D-Link

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Difference between a Lada and Jaguar

The Lada makes it 10 years before requiring an overhaul and is a decent commuter, while the Jag falls apart every 300km (or aftrr the first foot of snow, whichever is sooner)? Because in my experience a reasonably well cared for Lada keeps ticking well beyond the Jags (which are the most unreliable, overpriced shit on the road.)

Then again, I'm judging by the standards of "a good commuter car for Edmonton, Alberta." Which - for me and mine - is all that matters. (Still take a Toyota any day. Get 25 years out of those things.) I don't actually care what standards you are judging by. They don't apply to me.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Which model is it?

Well, Bollocks. I've had both of those things floating around the lab at one point or another. To be honest, I ran both of 'em through the wringer - I got the 3420 for a client a few weeks after the 3620 showed up for review. I obviously made a boo-boo and looked at the wrong switch when writing the model number down for the article.

I will ping the sub ed and ask him to change this. For the record, the article applies equally to both switches. I put them both to the wall and they performed identically.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Making excuses

If I "make excuses tinged with embarrassment" it is because of 10+ years of relentless ad homenim attacks and professional degradation by the Cisco indoctrinated crowd. Let me be perfectly clear here: D-Link's business switches have been stalwart, reliable elements of every single network I've ever built except one. They have proven to be reliable, capable and simple. They are all you Really Need until you get big enough to start needing to futz around with layer 3 stuff.

That said, I have over the years developed a "trauma victim" complex discussing such things in public because of the vehemence of the backlash from people who make 8x my salary. It is no different than the vehemence I encounter when I defame Microsoft's licensing practices regarding VDI, or deride the manner in which the UI decisions were taken regarding Windows 8. People attack me personally.

They question my upbringing, my genetics, my intelligence, competence, professional capability…they even go so far as to contact my employers and clients and demand that I be fired immediately for quite obviously being unworthy to work in the IT industry at all. I have been cyber-stalked by people who are angry that I dare question Microsoft's innate "right" to tell us how to run our networks (and their "right" to punish us with breathtaking licensing regulations should we try to implement anything in an unapproved manner.)

Similarly, I have had some rally Bad Stuff thrown my way for daring to mention that OpenWRT on a Netgear WNDR2700 v2 can actually go toe-to-toe with a lot of the better high-end wifi gear, (or even a lot of Cisco's stuff, depending on the application.)

To put it simply: high-end enterprise-class IT nerds with big stonking budgets have among their number an unfortunate number of bullies. They also believe in their own divine ability to judge what is "right" for everyone else; doubly so if they know zero details of the network in question.

I am not saying I'm a saint. I really wish a rock from space would fall on the Microsoft licenceing department and wipe them all out. It's vindictive, it's mean…it may even make me "evil" to wish such a thing. But I do; that one collection of individuals has cause me – personally and professionally – more grief than any other group of people on the planet, including the creepy cyberstalkers. I am aware it is not okay (at all) to "hate" an identifiable group and I wish I knew of an off switch. I don't like that part of myself, it's ugly, horrible and unprofessional in the extreme. It is also functionally instinctual by now, given how many times per day I bump up against the problems they cause me.

There is, however, a difference between wishing a thing and acting upon said dark impulses. Trash talk on the internet (or in person, or what-have-you) is one thing. Actively going out of your way to sabotage an individual's career, company, personal relationships, etc is something else entirely.

No matter how much the decisions made my MS's licenceing goons have directly negatively influenced my own life - and those of people I care about - I sure as heck don't send angry little e-mails to Microsoft demanding that the licensing department all be fired, or actively stalking them and trying to ruin their lives.

I restrict myself to griping about how much I loathe the bastards on the internet. I work to show people that there are alternatives to Microsoft out there and I try hard to explain why getting locked into Microsoft's ecosystem could be bad for your business. I also praise Microsoft where and when it is due; for all my gripes about anti-customer behaviour and licenceing shenanigans, they do make some of the best technology on the planet.

So why do I "make excuses tinged with embarrassment?" Because I reflexively know that by not writing articles that are top-tier enterprise-class whitepaper friendly I am in for a rough ride. Most of the time it is just crap thrown at me in the comments or by e-mail. I'm down with that. Even if a whole bunch of you want a rock from space to land on me. I can accept that poking the sacred cow on a regular basis makes me the Least favourite Person amongst quite a few folks.

But I never know how far it will go. I never know how far some whackjob will take it. People don't just keep their griping to internet flame wars and a little light trolling any more.

It's one thing to wish ill on someone. It's another thing entirely to go out and start causing that ill…and I honestly fear that something as simple as "praising D-Link as a viable, capable solution" will result in people trying to do just that.

It's funny, you know. Someone like the Microsoft licensing folks can put in place licenceing restrictions that invalidate the business models of hundreds of businesses, cost tens of thousands of jobs at a whim. We defend their "right" to do so and vociferously shout down anyone who questions their activities. When someone small time (like me) speaks up to praise a product and real harm from an untraceable, anonymous assailant befalls them for it, we tell them to "suck it up, princess." We tell them that it's "just part of the job."

*sigh*

Back to work. I've more reviews to write. I found more things I like that my fellow sysadmins should probably know exist.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Adtran

If any show up on my doorstep, I will. :)

0
0

Microsoft's own code should prevent an Azure SSL fail: So what went wrong?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Brand new code?

CSC work and it works well. There is also a straightforward upgrade path to its use that is easier than any other IIS upgrade before it. I don't buy "untested" here; it is an evolution of certman and IIS. Not a bloody metal --> hypervisor transition.

That's what baffles me. Server 2012 is GOOD CODE. Not only that, it has the exact answer to this exact problem. You know me well enough by now to understand that I would never say this lightly, but...CSC doesn't behave like Microsoft "never use version 1.0 of anything" code.

The whole incident is bizzare.

0
2

Is world's first space tourist Dennis Tito planning a trip to Mars?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"...it will be a one way trip."

No something that would discourage me. Why should it discourage him?

4
0

Twitter opens ad API... awaits cash TSUNAMI from ad-slingers

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: You just gotta love marketeers!

Actually, the first rule of marketing is "have a decent product to sell." Sadly, this hasn't been taught professionally in a long time.

0
0

Google takes Chromebook upmarket with touchy-feely Pixel

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @SuccessCase

@SuccessCase Funny, I am able to find quite a few active production liens on scale motorised bicycles ("trick bikes") all over the internet. Seems to me there is no conspiracy to stop producing them.

I remember there being announcements to stop producing netbooks, some of which even mentioned explicitly (usually during earnings calls) how good this was for the bottom line. There was also Microsoft who explicitly forbade netbooks with decent specs in their licenceing, and Intel who explicitly forbade decently specced atom systems

None of that is a conspiracy either; it is a bunch of manufacturers independently choosing to screw is all by avoiding – and actively attempting to suppress – the cheaper, "good enough" option. Especially because it was so popular.

Just because you have a hard on for clock cycles you don't use doesn't meant most people do. Quit projecting your own inadequacy issues onto the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world has nothing to compensate for.

For those of us just tying to get shit done, battery life means more than anything. A1 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 n atom is just fine for us.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @SuccessCase

Can't really say I agree. Windows 7 Starter is just fine for a netbook, and it runs perfectly okay in 2GB of RAM. The only real issue is the stock 4200rpm drive my little Samsung shipped with, but a cheap-o SSD solves the problem.

Presuming Microsoft wouldn't shit a brick, you could easily sell a 1280x800 netbook with 4GB of RAM on an Intel Atom with Windows 7 Starter and an SSD for $400 and the battery would last 12 hours. It would sell like fucking hotcakes. It would wreck the notebook market (whatever is left of it) and start clawing back some of the tablet market.

Manufacturers won't. Microsoft certainly has no interest in letting them, even were they so inclined. End users, however, would buy the shit out of that netbook. The demand is there and "Windows on the device" isn't the problem...though Microsoft very much so is.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@SuccessCase

Actually, you're full of shit. Netbooks have been a raging success amongst the people out there buying computers. They are not a success amongst the people who sell computers. People want to buy netbooks. Nobody wants to sell them.

It's a case of manufacturers protecting margins, not demand falling out from under the category. But hey, you have fun with your toys, I'll have fun with mine. I'll wave at you from the bar all the way over there by the overloaded power plug. Hey, did you just unplug that guy so you could charge? First come first serve; get over it.

7
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: it does mention battery life...

A) That's me being derpy and failing to read properly. Bad me. 50 lashes with a Microsoft Bob manual.

B) 5 hours. That's appalling.

3
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Facepalm

But will it have

both backspace and delete keys? Nope. Because it's a Google keyboard. I also notice there's no mention of battery life. Guess I'm sticking with my netbook for now. Sorry Google. You're not a Big Player in hardware. You're a wannabe that Doesn't Get It...just like everyone else.

Can we get some innovation to aisle 5? Innovation? Aisle 5. Right next to "just" and across from "works" please. Thank you...

6
8

Microsoft: Office 2013 license is for just one PC, FOREVER

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Mushroom

Re: Don't like it, DON'T BUY IT!

I am aware of collateral damage. I am simply more interested in ensuring the job is done right the first time. >:)

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Alien

Sometimes the only way to be sure...

...is to drop a large rock on it from space.

Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace!

Where's my Space Core icon?

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Don't like it, DON'T BUY IT!

Believe me, I won't.

Microsoft have the right to imposesome restrictions on the sale of their software (Canada still has a handful of consumer protection laws, unlike the savages to the south of us) and I have the right to tell Microsoft to eat a sack of wiggling, severed dicks. Fuck Microsoft's licensing department with a Russian meteor. Better yet, fuck them with a Yucatan meteor.

I will continue my practice of donating the cost of an MS licence to the Libre Office foundation for every install of that software I make. I'm not afraid of paying good money for good software. I do however have fundemental ethical objections to the bullshit terms and restrictions that Microsoft builds into bloody everything they make. More so to the hundreds of millions they spend on lobbying around the world to make sure that we have fewer consumer rights this year than last. Bastards.

10
1

Concurrent gives old SQL users new Hadoop tricks

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Will it still let me do this?

Little Bobby Tables, we call him...

0
0

Australia cuts Microsoft bill by AU$100m

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Reseller Markup

I think eGeek is (technically) a reseller for MS software. (I'm pretty sure I did the paperwork at some point...)

The markup isn't enough for me to give fucks about it. It doesn't drop the cost for my clients of retail by much, so I only bust it out if buying in enough quantity to be worth digging up the e-mail that reminds me what horrid ring of fuckosity is required to be followed to get hold of the damned licences in the first place.

Same with Office 365. Oh, I *can* sell Office 365 - I think I have a customer still on it - and get some bent pittance back my way in terms of kickback off the subscription price...but is that razor thin amount of money worth screwing over my customer? I'd rather make sure I get the best product for thier needs - which in the case of email is explicitly never Office 365 - than try to cling to an additional point or two of margin on Microsoft's coattails. My long term customer relationships are (quite frankly) worth more to me than the short-term relationship with Microsoft.

Besides, if I ever came up with a decent business model focused around Microsoft's software, Microsoft would take it away from me. Then they'd sue me for something to make doubly sure I couldn't compete. I've learned better than to see being a Microsoft Partner as anything other than a very narrow means to a very specific end.

It is not an ecosystem sane people become to deeply embedded within. At least not sane people in it for more than the next quarter...

0
0

Crucial question after asteroid near-miss: How big was rock in Olympic pools?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Oh4FS

And we have programs in place already to spkt rocks of a size that matter. Your point?

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: To further calms the nerves

Multi-TRILLION. My back-of-napkin maths says 13 Trillion. At least. We could start a dozen Mars colonies with that. Or turn both Vesta and Ceres into completely self sufficient worlds that not only didn't need support from Earth, they could support populations and industry diverty to be true peers.

I think everyone is seriously underestimating how damned hard these things are to spot, not to mention how many there are or how long you have to watch them to establish orbital trajectories. Or - for that matter - the computer you're going to need to do the calculations. Because it would be the size of Baffin Island (were it made from Fusion IO cards and Blue Gene Qs) and would require more power than North America.

Just saying, is all...

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Mushroom

Re: To further calms the nerves

Because the pile of rubble that blew up over Russia is too small for us to care about. We don't even bother looking for anything that small; they can't do relevant amounts of damage when compared to the truly monumental expense of trying to track those things.

Do you know how many Russia-meteor-sized balls of snow and gravel slam into this planet every century? Rather a lot. Thing is, we're mostly ocean. They tend to blow up over the ocean where fucks are simply not given. If that thing had blown up over New York or London, it would be a Bad Thing. Yet fixing a city's worth of windows and coping with a few additional injuries is actually quite a bit less than the epic amount of money it would cost us to ring the planet with enough high-resolution telescopes with rapid-tracking systems (and enough fuel!) to start hunting Sol's detritus.

There's roughly zero political capital in funding science to begin with. Funding science at that scale in order to discover (and then prevent?) events that – on the scale of nations – are fairly irrelevant would be political suicide.

To put it more bluntly; you are significantly more likely to be hurt crossing the street to get a coffee than any of us are being killed by a Russia-meteor-sized pile of space debris. For the same money we'd have to spend fending off this unlikely boogyman, we could build continent-spanning automated personal vehicle networks that would save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.

In reality, we'll piss it all away on superbowl commercials and dodgy lawsuits against people running file locker sites. Because we're human. Are those quarterly reports ready yet? I've got a meeting with the senator from Nebraska at 2:00 to go over them...

Cheers.

15
1

Iceland thinks long and hard over extreme smut web ban law

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Tell me how to stop them surfing for whatever they want on their (or their mate's) smartphone?

God damn it man, I'm writing features as fast as I can

2
0

Brand-new black hole found in supernova remnant

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Not that careful with the dates

It is standard when discussing astrophysics to refer to phenomena not by when they occurred in their local timeframe, but when they can be observed by us here on earth. Maybe if we get off this mudball we can care about changing that particular point of conversational nitpickery, but it is a lot easier (for a number of reasons) to keep the temporal context fixed to the observer, not the observed.

9
0

Obama says patent trolls 'extort money', pledges reform

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Promises

Either way, your president shouldn't be making promised that your republican congress won't keep. He - as with any politician, regardless of stripe - should stick only to the truth. Promise only that which you, personally can ensure.

The rest, well...you didn't think the common man was goign to come out ahead in anything, did you?

5
7