"the techies will always be needed regardless of this business/social skills bullshit"
Why? What do you do that can't be automated?
6615 posts • joined 31 May 2010
"the techies will always be needed regardless of this business/social skills bullshit"
Why? What do you do that can't be automated?
To be fair, "a large busted red head able to operate a laptop" is welcome anywhere and everywhere.
More'n just that. Companies want you to devote you life to them. Bleed their colours, think always with the company's interests in mind. They promise you everything from stock options to raises, from a seat at the table of decisions to little things, like being allowed to put a fish tank in the office.
But everything they say is a fucking lie. What they want is the most possible work out of you, with absolute devotion for the least amount of money. And when you're burnt out, and you can give no more, they discard you.
The problem is that businesses have an entitlement issue. They expect absolute devotion from their employees whilst offering nothing in return. The only way they retain staff is to keep them so busy they can't realistically go forth and look for a better job.
That's not "us" versus "them", because they never even consider "us". We simply don't occur to them. Not on that level. Not even on a level enough to keep promises.
And then you leave, do something else, build you own office and get the goddamned fish tank.
"Very well, please explain to several species why they are ordained by our idiocy to extinction. Then, explain to those who predate upon them for survival."
Okay, I will. Dear things that eat mosquitoes, and only mosquitoes: you had to die because your food source was a massively annoying vector for various horrible diseases. So sorry.
See, that wasn't hard, now was it?
I care not what role mosquitoes serve. We will help the planet adapt to their absence. Like IP lawyers, they should be made extinct.
"I'd like to know which species tried and failed to decode their own genomes."
Intellectualus Propertyus Lawyerus tried, but they failed. Sadly, the ecohippies and their biodiversity hullabaloo say we can't just wipe the species out. I get the preservation of most species, but - like the mosquito - I feel this one should be erased. We'll sort out the consequences later.
"Riiiiiight. So what exactly do you mean? ADFS from Microsoft, PING, CA, Oracle and to some degree Shibboleth have been translating AD authentication to the cloud via standardized federation protocols for over a decade. These were not lackluster attempts at separate online authentication systems. Federation solutions from vendors have been working with AD for a long time and a LOT of people implemented them."
These solutions have mostly been translating between enterprise applications and/or customer built stuff (including websites that could, yes, be hosted "in the cloud") and AD. They are not generally "cloud based authentication systems" that then tie back to AD. Rather, they take the opposite approach, living mostly behind the corporate firewall and then extending a tendril to hosted applications one at a time.
The goal behind these sorts of applications is "single sign on". Basically what FIM was supposed to do, but never quite got right. They still (generally) rely on either loading client software onto clients or having client systems connect to the corporate network via VPN, etc.
Azure Active Directory takes a different approach. It basically hangs the authentication system out on the internet and says "address me via API from wherever you are." Instead of custom coding each interconnected tendril into each third party app, website or so forth, Microsoft expects everyone else to code for AAD. And they'll probably do so.
But it also means that when you combine it with technologies like Direct Access, the whole concept of having to manage a client system with agents, VPNs or other tools of "get the behind my corporate firewall" go away. Everything lives facing the internet, and the internet becomes the common point of communication, not the corporate network.
"Maybe you are referring to the efforts of Facebook (via their Graph API) and Google that pioneered the OAuth protocols for web based authentication. In fact Microsoft has only recently started to implement these standards into Azure AD."
Yes, as a matter of fact, when talking about "everyone else - including Microsoft's past incarnations - have all been lackluster attempts to create what amounts to a separate online authentication system only very loosely coupled to AD" that was exactly who I was thinking of.
The major online authentication systems - Facebook, Twitter and Google being the primary examples - have done very poor jobs of enterprise integration. And they are the only things that are, to my mind, directly comparable to Azure Active Directory. Why? Because their primary purpose - like that of AAD - is authentication of online services. They are there to live "in the cloud" and serve as a central point of identity using a globally addressable network that isn't directly controlled by the enterprise.
This is completely different to SSO software setups that seek to make the enterprise authentication system (AD) the primary, and extend that piecemeal into selected applications and services. They approaches are polar opposites.
"Again, you should really find a contact at Microsoft (Vittorio Bertocci would be a good contact for you) who can help you understand the history and current implementation of Azure AD. It wasn't "AD thrown into the cloud". Azure AD is a brand new code base. File -> New -> Project...."
The code base doesn't matter. The APIs do. How much of the functionality is exposed. How much legacy is maintained, how much isn't. What can integrate with ease and what can't. My understanding is that AAD will never fully replicate traditional AD. It's a clean break, with only the minimum required to get the job done held over from the old AD. The goal isn't to authenticate devices anymore, it's to authenticate SaaS apps and various other services.
Microsoft basically took the AD APIs, threw them into the cloud, cut back to the bare minimum they could get away with then started growing it in a whole new direction from the on-prem stuff.
"Microsoft's solution for hybrid auth is the SAME as everyone elses."
False. It was similar. The latest iteration has changed that.
"In fact some would argue that they have a old architecture for the bridge from Azure AD to on premises AD. Microsoft uses ADFS for the federation of authentication between Azure AD and on premises. Just like Oracle,PING, CA and IBM (and so on)."
False, dirsync is moving away from this.
"The only piece that Microsoft has that is fairly unique, is the synchronization of identity attributes. Built on a 10 year old legacy system, it requires the deployment of slight (with DirSync/AADSync) to significant (with FIM) on premises software."
Start here: http://blogs.technet.com/b/educloud/archive/2013/06/03/new-azure-active-directory-sync-tool-with-password-sync-is-now-available.aspx and continue through the various links and research until you get the difference between a "federated" auth system and a "managed" one.
With Dirsync AAD and WASD are not simply federated SSO systems. It's more appropriate to think of the local auth system as slaved to AAD. The architecture is different, which introduces it's own benefits and it's own drawbacks.
"Google has it's own similar solution, with GADS (Google Active Directory Sync). Heck even Salesforce has a way to sync AD data into it's own cloud identity platform."
And this is where I start to seriously doubt your self-declared (anonymous) authority on the topic. GADS is horrible compared to AAD. Not that I'm overly a fan of either solution, but that's like holding up a Windows Phone and declaring it a perfect substitute for a proper desktop.
Implementation matters. What strikes me is that you are holding up a whole bunch of completely unconnected solutions here that behave completely differently, have shockignly different design philosophies and radically different thresholds for ease of use and basically saying "they're all the same".
PING, CA, Oracle, Google, Facbook and AAD all live in the same box in your mind? Really? Do you also mentally cluster together a Caterpillar a Semi Truck and a Smart Car because they all can be used for transportation?
Look, let me make this simple for you:
AAD is the easiest of all the options available to set up. AAD is the easiest of all the options available to maintain. AAD is one of the most miserable to integrate with traditional enterprise applications or your own home-rolled special sauce because it doesn't conform to your enterprise apps, you conform to AAD. (Or you use FIM, but FIM is...touchy.)
AAD has a lovely API for everyone who wants to conform to AAD to do so. Microsoft is big enough to convince most of the world to do exactly that...and they're well on their way to getting Everyone Who Matters onboard. They'll bribe or bully whomever else remains.
AAD is comfortable, familiar, easy to use and already has quite a few SaaS apps and service providers on board. Perhaps more to the point, it's affordable and doesn't require specialists to work with. Every SMB in the world can use it tomorrow, and afford to do so.
Companies have trusted Microsoft to be their identity provider for 15 years now, AAD is the natural extension of that...and they finally have it done right.
Active Directory became the basis of modern identity systems a while back. Most applications talk to it natively, and don't need a third party SSO application. Hell, man, even PHP has libraries for talking directly to AD (http://adldap.sourceforge.net/)!
Yes, some applications - or rather the vendors seeking control over the customer that write those applications - still need some form of third party SSO. There will probably always be such folks in the world. But the majority of new applications out there will code for AAD, not for Oracle, Ping CA, Google or whathaveyou. (Well, maybe Google.)
Like it or not, when it comes to identity, Microsoft can bully through a standard by sheer largesse. And by making AAD easy to deploy, integrate with and maintain, I argue they've done exactly that.
"Trevor, please stop trying to declare that Azure AD is the worlds leading cloud identity platform when you clearly have little to no knowledge of other existing solutions or the identity industry in general."
Active directory is the world's leading identity platform. Azure Active Directory is the cloud extension of this that will dominate the online identity market. It is inevitable, and there is noone out there capable of preventing this.
The deal is done, the die is cast and it's all over except for the screaming.
The better question is: who are you, Mr Anonymous Coward, and what is your interest in all of this? Not meaning offense, but your posts strike me as similar to several I read around 10 years ago on usenet, in tech magazines, etc. They were by the staff (and sometimes executives) of hosted e-mail services/webmail etc who spent rather a lot of time telling anyone who would listen that Google wasn't a threat.
Well Google did change email forever. The old model of charging a monthly fee for a few dedicated megabytes of storage evaporated overnight. Google commodiitsed email. They offered the entire world a means to get an e-mail that wasn't tied to your ISP, and didn't go away when you switched providers. More to the point, you could store all your e-mail, forever, and it didn't go away when your hard drive crashed.
Here, now, Microsoft is commoditising joined-up identity services. They are also changing the focus from "identity behind your corporate firewall" to "identity in the Cloud". You might not like this - hell, I don't like this - but it is what is happening.
And really, why is that such a bad thing? A single common referent for future development could be very useful.
Azure doesn't have to "win the internet and cloud". Non-requisite. Microsoft must maintain a cloud presence. Size will be determined by success. But it will be there from here on out. Part of that is Azure AD. That's not going anywhere.
Azure AD can be a smash hit success and power most of the internet's authentication even if Azure itself remains a relatively minor cloud player.
100% agree. And the fact that it's such a mess - remember, Microsoft has tried to "own" online authentication with it's own online mechanisms at least three times prior to this - is what gives Microsoft the advantage.
Everyone else - including Microsoft's past incarnations - have all been lackluster attempts to create what amounts to a separate online authentication system only very loosely coupled to AD. This time, Microsoft basically took AD and threw it in the cloud, then cut back as much of it as possible until they could declare a compromise made between security and functionality.
Microsoft then lashed it together with the onsite version and voila: a hybrid auth system that A) works and B) stands out from the pack. Everyone else has essentially the same auth system, just backed by a different player. This is your old, familiar auth system "stretched" into the cloud.
That will give it a hold that no other auth system will be able to match. Like it or not, Microsoft are still the 800lb gorilla of enterprise authentication. Now they have a real product for handling people outside the corporate firewall.
Everyone else who is out there trying to extend a consumer identity system into something enterprises will accept might as well just pack up and go home. This game is over.
Now, who will own the consumer identity space...that's a whole other question. But if Microsoft gets enough uptake from cloud services for Azure Active Directory, they may well win that too.
Yes, FIM requires "some help". I have, in fact, worked with it. It's a bitch the first time you do it. Not so much the second time. It is absolutely one of those things where your everyday sysadmin isn't going to make it work, but a capable expert can.
What's more important is that FIM is not required for Azure AD to work. It is used mostly to tie in third-party non-cloud applications.
The problem with all the other identity services out there is that they lack support. Some have sen uptake here and there, but it's nowhere near as universal as Active Directory. Microsoft is seeing explosive growth of AAD, and the latest version really does address (most of) the problems that the previous iterations had.
Also, if you're going to come on here and attempt to wave around Gartner as some indication of what's going on in the world, I will call you a fool. Gartner is an indication of what everyone was doing eighteen months ago. It has no bearing on what's going on today, unless you are hyper-conservative in your product selection.
Azure AD is, for all intents and purposes, newly minted as a viable product. Despite this, it is seeing massive uptake, especially from enterprises. This is because it is as close to a push-button extension of their own on-premises AD setups as possible. It is about eleventy billion times easier to use than FIM and it's predecessor - AD itself - is so widely distributed that it is the de facto standard for corporate identity across the planet.
Nobody - not even Centrify - can seriously challenge Microsoft here.
Now if you want to dispute the above, you go right ahead. But the instant you attempt to say things like I'm somehow writing what Microsoft wants me to write you're proving yourself to be nothing more than someone with an axe to grind (or a product to sell?)
My posting history on this site - as a commenter and an author - will prove that there is no love lost between myself and Microsoft. I am one of Microsoft's loudest and most vocal critics. I have managed to get myself put on the "do not communicate with under any circumstances" list at Microsoft.
To put it bluntly, Microsoft and I are emphatically not friends.
You won't catch me using Azure Active Directory. Not because the technology is bad, but because it's limited (at the moment) to the American Public Cloud. I'm no NSA sock puppet, and I won't hand my customers over to them.
But that quirk of mine doesn't extend to the whole rest of the world. Globally, while there is a great deal of resistance to adoption of the American Public Cloud, there is also a great deal of acceptance. We're split, and those that are doing the embracing are funneling hundreds of billions every year into it. That's more than enough for Microsoft to establish dominance and force us to use it through sheer inevitability.
The hell of it is...it's a good product. Azure Active Directory as it exists today is actually worth a look, from a purely technical standpoint. If it existed for regional service providers without any tie back to Big Mamma Azure's NSA cloud, I'd be all over it like white on rice for every network I run.
So, hey, hate all you want, mate. But you'll still end up being wrong. Microsoft have this one in the bag. I'm not happy about that, but they do.
Nah, that one's long dead. The new Microsoft seems to be getting it right on the second try lately. I'd be scared of that, but I ran and hid in my bunker after four horsemen spooked the cattle, and it's really quite lovely down here with all these spiders...
You sound like the reason I get 6am phone calls involving rampant stupidity, "I didn't go to that website, I swear" and rootkits.
*sound of cattle prod charging*
Azure AD, done properly, jacks in to your onsite AD. So outages really don't hurt too much. (Except for roaming users...and they do cache creds until the next beacon.)
Azure AD was crap. Then it was mostly not crap. Now it's Microsoft Official Version 3 Working Edition. So we kinda can't ignore it any more.
This one, we just gotta learn to use..
Azure AD hooks into your on-premesis AD. So you can continue on if the net goes out. Though anyone outside the corporate firewall without net might be a little hooped. Until they turn their mobile into a hotspot. Or go to a cafe, or...
"To see what happens to the DNA when it gets hot, rather than all that rocket nonsense, couldn't they just heat that stuff up in an oven?"
Doesn't tell you anything about ablation, vibration, sonic disturbances, coping with the impact, etc.
"Also, wouldn't a real meteor be arriving at at least the Earth's escape velocity of 11 km/s?"
No. Most likely a real space rock would hit the atmosphere, explode and send shards of itself all across hell and gone. Man of those make it down to Earth just fine, and they aren't quite going at 11km/s. They're traveling at terminal velocity just like the rocket. Not being as aerodynamic as the rocket, their terminal velocity would be lower.
Also: the outside of those objects will be melted by friction, but the insides have been known to house quite cold objects. See: ablation, and it's effects on cooling.
"The question whether or not viable fragments of DNA, or even whole organisms landed here is moot. If it was a whole organism, we know that it cannot have been more complex than the most basic chemotrophes, because that is the stuff our earliest fossil record indicates existed at the Dawn of Life. Nothing more complicated than that could have possibly landed here."
Actually, you are incorrect. Since the most likely Source Of Modern Life On Earth is "soft" panspermia (comets seeded volatiles and amino acids which gave rise to life) technically it's entirely possible that relatively complex alien life did land on Earth and native-grown Earth life simply killed it all off. We'll probably never know.
For that matter, maybe alien blue-green algea landed on Earth last night via some space rock, and the local fauna had a tasty snack. Again, we'll never know.
"We had everything needed for life on earth before it started."
No, we didn't. When Theia whacked into Earth it blew off out atmosphere and liquified the entire fucking planet. Heavy elements sunk to the core and it took millions of years for the crust to reform. Volcanism ejected stupid amounts of CO2 and methane, but not nearly enough H2O and virtually no N2.
The nitrogen that makes up most of our atmosphere came from the late heavy bombardment, as did a lot of our water. And it is most likely that the chemicals which gave rise to the first life on Earth were seeded here during the late heavy bombardment. This is known as "soft" panspermia, and it is the best fit for the evidence we have today.
Earth didn't simply "have all the chemicals required" for life and then life arose. That's radically unlikely, due to the formational history of our planet. Instead, it's far more likely that those chemicals were deposited on Earth as fully formed amino acids during the late heavy bombardment, along with the majority of our volatiles.
But the Earth, as a planet, existed for quite some time before the late heavy bombardment. Indeed, it had already gone through one fairly major event (the Big Whack) before we ever got that far. We were a dead world until some comets brought us life.
Who cares that it wasn't life in the form of alien cells? It was precious, precious volatiles and the amino acids that made us.
Life doesn't have to get here on meteorites. Just the chemical building blocks. Methinks if DNA can make it intact, so can various amino acids. And I'm thinking that, really, if we have C, N, O, Fe, Mg, P, Ca and H2O along with a few amino acids and temperatures in the right ranges, we'll get abiogenesis. At least, if you give it a few hundred million years.
A whole alien cell doesn't need to get here intact. But if some interesting enough chemicals happen along, it can really speed up that whole "abiogenesis of metabolism" thing.
Your power bill is how.
And fuck you too. Half the commenters on this site qualify as hackers. Myself included. And no matter the colour of their hats, nobody deserves to be killed for cracking a system, mate. You're also failing to distinguish between ethical hackers, hacktivists, white hats, black hats, grey hats, mercenaries and so forth.
Kill off all the hackers and you'd wipe out 95% of the top talent in our industry. Fancy going back to running society on TI-83s?
That's not how it's analysed by CxOs. They ask "how likely is it to happen to us?" Then they balance cost versus perceived risk.
So let's say that this whole fiasco woudl have cost $35M to avoid in the first place by doing security right. Currently costs are at $43M, with that likely to reach $250M by the time it's all done.
So, that same $35M, invested into something else - let's say Apple stock - over the 10 years it would have taken to spend that all and evolve their systems into something properly secure (these sorts of security issues are cumulative and the result of organic growth and lack of joined up planning.) Is the rate of return equal to or higher than $250M? And what is the likelihood you'll see be hacked, even with bad security?
Understand that Home Depot may well still be financially ahead after this hack, despite the high headline numbers. That's what's the most horrible about all of this.
American Public Cloud evangelism is outside the scope of this series. Though if you've a yen to be the NSA's plaything, by all means, assist in the destruction of the privacy and civil liberties of your customers.
No, I mean it in an absolute sense. Virtuozzo provide the best container tech at the moment. It's the most fully instrumented, the most stable, the most secure, the easiest to use. Even more so than Docker. Currently, they set the bar for excellence.
For the record, I'm a Linux admin by trade. I was a Windows admin for 20 years, but we largely parted ways about 3 years back. I'd been using Linux for about 15 years in production at that point, but about three years ago it became over 90% of new installs. Today, Windows administration makes up less than 20% of the systems I oversee. And that is dropping.
The sad part is, it's the Windows customers who bring in the real money. Linux customers are - in my experience - cheap barstwards who don't call you in until something is right good and broken. Windows clients are quite used to the idea of needing regular monthly maintenance.
Insightful as usual, Mr. Amsden. Thanks!
If you want to find evidence of abuse by Google, look at their advertising agreements and ask "are Google saying you can't advertise with other search engines?" Look at Android and ask if they are preventing people from feilding phones based on other OSes if they choose to feild a Google-branded Android one. Can they feild a Fire-based and an Android-based phone at the same time?
"We are advertising our services on our own website while we also give others the ability to advertise on our own website" is not abuse.
Promoting your own products isn't abuse. Especially when you offer avenues for of the companies to promote their products, and you aren't locking customers in.
Your personal hatred for Google doesn't make them abusive. It just makes you unable to be objective.
Bullshit, witch hunter. Bull fucking shit. Steaming piles of it.
A monopoly is allowed to advertise adjacent services in conjunction with their primary service. They aren't allowed to lock you into it, or attempt to use their monopoly to force or coerce you to use their adjacent services.
Google are not doing any of the above. They are promoting their services on their site...but they also provide a mechanism for others to promote competing services on their site. There is no lock in. There is no exclusivity in advertising. They are not abusing their near-monopoly in any way.
Just as my local telco can offer me "quad play" services by giving me discounts for bundling mobile, television, land line and internet, so too can Google advertise their other services.
In fact, Google aren't even offering a "discount" for using their services. There isn't anything remotely like the sort of high-pressure lock-in I get from a telco. I can give you at least 50 really good examples of companies that abuse their monopoly or near-monopoly positions, but in this case, Google is not doing that.
There are a hundred damned good reasons to hate on Google and try to see them censured. Why the metric fucknobbin are you lot screaming into the inky blackness of despair with only the one fucking thing they aren't actually doing wrong as your candle?
Jesus metric monkey fuck, people. if you want to hammer Google get them for something that will actually stand up in court. They aren't abusing a search monopoly. This is nothing more than a witch hunt and you lot can't figure out how much a fucking duck weighs.
I've no love for Google. But this Redmondian-backed witch hunt is fucking clown shoes. There's better shit we could all be doing than dealing with this. More important stuff - in the IT industry even - that would benefit the people far more than this.
And make no mistake, this is nothing more than a witch hunt. And I've no respect for puritans of any stripe.
So build some fucking alternatives.
Google is dominant because nobody else is capable. breaking up a company "Because protectionism" sets a horrible precedent and will seriously hinder international investment in the EU. In turn, that will leave EU companies unable to compete with their global counterparts.
The solution here is investment in innovation and promotion of alternatives. Throw money at retaining and concentrating smart people until a better mousetrap emerges. If China can do it, why the hell is Europe so fucking incapable?
Google can weather a share price drop.
I doubt very much if the EU can weather the resultant economic downturn as all their businesses cease to be competitive with their global peers overnight. The resulting shitstorm will not hit Google, it will destroy the careers of the politicians in question.
If there are alternatives that actually work, let the government promote them and let the people decide.
I suspect I know which they'll choose.
"It is high time Europe stops being a US digital backyard. "
100% agree. So when are they going to stop with this "break up Google" foolishness and start work on developing software and services that excel, and thus compete with Google? Hmm?
Hating America - and I doubt very much you hate them more than I - is not a rational or valid reason to kick Google in the goolies. if you want Google out of your backyard, build something that's actually competitive. You've got eleventy billion governments over there. Get some fucking grants going!
" a 90% market share is excessive by anyones standards "
No it's not. There are lots of things with that level or higher market share. It's called excellence. Maybe, if you were excellent at something, you'd be able to achieve similar results.
It didn't violate my EULA to blow away Android and put Cyanogenmod on it. Though my service provider said they can't provide me technical support, because they don't keep staff on hand that know Cyanogenmod. That's fair enough; that's what I pay Cyanogenmod for. And that's between my and my mobile provider anyways; Google's not involved in that discussion at all.
"Neither did Microsoft wake up one morning and find that they were the biggest OS vendor. Either way, if you're going to abuse (or be seen to be abusing) a dominant position or monopoly in the market, you run the risk of the competition authorities coming along and jumping up and down on you."
Google isn't abusing - or aiming to abuse - it's position. Microsoft did and then continued to do so for the next 20 years abuse it's position to lock in customers and obliterate any form of competition.
Google doesn't care that you compete with them. Google find a service they feel they can do better and the go forth and do it better.
If there's something wrong with that, then Microsoft should not have been allowed to integrate a hypervisor into Windows Server. Microsoft should not have been allowed to integrate Storage Replica into Windows Server. Microsoft should not have been allowed to integrate deduplication into Windows Server. Etc. All examples of Microsoft building a feature into their product after several other versions were on the market.
Why is this bad for Google to do and not Microsoft? Microsoft is more of an abusive monopoly than Google. Google doesn't lock you in or punish you for leaving. Microsoft has spent hundreds of billions locking customers into their ecosystem and they absolutely punish you for attempting to leave.
Please, do explain.
So you want your economies to collapse because you drove out the most efficient IT services in a number of sectors and willingly crippled the ability of your local businesses to compete on a global stage?
It's not like the EU has local anything that can actually compete with Google at virtually anything it does. Hell, you don't even have a Bing, and Bing is terrible.
"Most non-IT people don't seem to know that there are other search engines and it has become a catch 22 situation as no-one can effectively enter the market as it simply costs too much. Small players are feeling the squeeze and that only leaves two alternatives which most people don't use."
Why should Google subsidise it's competition? And the barrier to entry isn't the cost of advertising, mate. It's the 24/7 global datacenter setup required to handle the exabytes of data you have to process to come close to Google's capabilities. Even Microsoft can't match Google.
This is the internet. Build a better mousetrap and the entire world will ditch Google in a heartbeat.
Myspace, meet Facebook.
Digg meet Reddit.
Every IM ever, meet Whatsapp.
...oh, that's right, nobody has made a better mousetrap yet.
Last time I checked, Bing was deeply integrated into Windows, Azure Active Directory was being baked into Windows 10 and Azure Replica was being baked into Windows Server's Hyper-V.
I didn't ask for any of those. Seems "deeply integrated" to me.
A) the majors don't feel the need to advertise with Google for rankings
B) Google's internal teams don't feel like allocating the budget for advertising with the search team either for the exact same reasons.
Why advertise when everyone knows you name? People don't search for "cloud storage" they search for "Dropbox". They don't search for "free webmail" they search for "Gmail". When you're Kleenex you don't advertise against the keyword "tissue".
"Should Google be giving its products prominence over others, just because they belong to Google?"
Yes. Just like every other fucking company on earth is allowed to do.
"Is that a misuse of their position in search. "
No. Because decent alternatives exist, and you are not forced to use Google. In fact, you must go out of your way to do so. Regardless of the past, today good alternatives exist. At least "god enough" for the average punter. People use Google because they want to. Why should it be hobbled artificially with restrictions that don't apply to it's competitors when it isn't locking anyone in to anything?
This is very different from an actual monopoly abusing it's dominant position.
What is perhaps the most important element here is that the consumer is not harmed by Google's actions. They are getting the superior service for the lowest possible price available and are not prevented or even discouraged from looking for alternative services. The only people who face any difficulties are A) Google's competitors who must actually pay for advertising and B) Politicos who cannot control the people if they cannot control the message.
"fifty-year farrago of lies and deceit, bribery and political bullying"
Which, of course, is naturally worse than 1000 years of the same, plus murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, war, more war, pointless war, religious war, the burning of witches, crusades, and hounding homosexuals to suicide. Oh, and the publicly stated desire to not be bound by the "shackles" of human rights.
Yeah, I can really see why the alternative is so attractive you.
"You didn't address my point, which was that there is a conflict of interest between the best search results for the user (ie. most relevant) and for google (ie. promotes their other products). Care to engage on that?"
Google run the fucking website. Search is not a public service. It's not pay for by any government or tax dollars. There are many alternatives to Google. Search costs money; without it, you can't run a search engine of any kind, let alone at Google's scale. People acutally want Google services. The majority of searches for relevant services are predicated with "Google": for example, "Google Maps".
There's no reason Google shouldn't be able to promote it's own services on it's own website. You aren't forced to use it. Two out of the three top browsers (Firefox and Internet Explorer) which are responsible for 75% of the browser market between them default to Yahoo and Bing (respectively).
With the exception of Chromebooks, Google Chorme is not shipped by default with the operating system. (It doesn't ship by default on Samsung Android devices, which make up the overwhelming majority of Android, and it isn't on iOS devices either.)
Users are making a conscious choice to choose Google. They are choosing Google willingly. They like Google as it is, and they don't want it changed. They prefer Google services to those of others because they are legitimately superior.
Why should WalMart not be allowed to sell own-branded goods in it's own stores? Should Amazon not be allowed to sell/promote it's video or cloud computing services on it's main website? Why is Microsoft allowed to build in support for Azure Active Directory to Windows 10 or Azure Hyper-V Replica into Windows Server? Why should Apple be allowed to build iCloud into their phones instead of offering a choice that includes Dropbox?
There is no reason. Like Google, none of those examples are monopolies. In fact, some of them are defaults; something Google emphatically is not.
This isn't "Microsoft bundling IE." People must make an actual choice</I. to use Google's services here, and there are umpteen alternatives. In fact, there are alternatives enabled <i>by default that they must bypass to get to Google.
Does that address your bullshit?
"Google pretending to do just a search "
When did Google say it was just a search?
How does "just a search" make any money?
If it can't make money, how does it stay open?
The Dune 2000 movies were good. Not 100% plot accurate, but still damned fine movies.
That acquisition was made for a ridiculous amount of
money stocks and everybody knew it.
For the record, you should replace "generation X" with "Millennials". Gen Xers are positively ancient.
Give me 64 nodes and I will get you 100M IOPS with at plenty of room to spare. If you honestly think that's difficult to achieve you have not been playing with good gear. As the other chap said: Micron p420m PCI-E SSDs will get you there with room to spare. That's before we look into Diablo MCS or start lashing things together with A3Cube.
100M IOPS per cluster is so "done". The new push is to get 250M sustainable. And I can point you at at least three groups who claim to have hit that in lab. I'm told we're to see 500M IOPS in a single cluster by VMworld.
Sure it is. Whomever pays the most wins. This isn't rocket surgery. America has the best government (and judiciary) that money can buy.
Ah, I see your mistake, good sir. No, no, we're combusting aluminium powder. That's right, nothing to see here. Sorry to bother you...