Feeds

* Posts by Trevor_Pott

4453 posts • joined 31 May 2010

Tech today: Popular kids, geeks, bitchfests... Welcome back to HIGH SCHOOL, nerds

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Mushroom

Nooooooooooooooo!

*dunce hat*

1
0

Yellow-bellied journo dons black tie, sees flip side of VMWorld

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: vExpert?

For all that VMware has it's rough spots, it's still damned amazing software.

....that and Hyper-V keeps randomly rebooting on me and blowing up at critical times...

0
0

It's all in the fabric for the data centre network

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: SDN

As a general rule SDN is easier to manage than traditional networking. SDN interfaces are often modern, up-to-date GUI affairs that can be addressed via the command line or scripts, but also take into account the rest of the human race that are visual learners and/or only go modify the network a few times a year.

That doesn't cover all implementations, naturally, but in general SDN has been used as a chance to break free from the ios tyranny and open switching administration to those who excel at things other than rote memorization.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: SDN

"The Internet" is low bandwidth, high latency. Datacenters are high bandwidth, low latency.

A fabric allows me to talk horizontally across a datacenter without bandwidth contention. Explain to me exactly how I accomplish that in a routed scenario without bottlenecking on the router. Or for that matter, how your very Cisco view of networking is going to be cheaper than a mesh fabric with dynamic layer-2 packet routing?

0
0

FIERY DEATH awaits all who stroke mobes mid-flight? Nope, says FAA

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

GPS *receives and processes* signals that are broadcast *by satellites*. A GPS emits no radio. It just crunches data on a time code.

How the metric fucking banana hell do you manage to turn passive crunching of omni-present signal data into a plea for pro-authoritarianism?

Christ on a bike, you lot are truly mad...

0
0

Revealed: Stealthy hybrid upstart Maxta's vSAN domination plan

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: I'll wait...

Actually, I use the same Supermicro kit that Nutanix does, along with Supermicro's excellent 10Gbit switches. I make a damned fine cloud, if'n I do say so myself.

Problem is, Nutanix won't sell me software. They want to sell me the stack and that's bloody expensive. More capital than I have to hand. That makes Maxta interesting.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Lots of competition here.

VMware has a vSAN...sort of. it's nice to see they finally got AHCI support added in, (you know, because it's really not all that important and blame the user if they don't buy according to the HCL. Or you know, can't afford to buy according to the HCL. Or happen to think that bog standard industry interfaces that are built into fucking everything should be supported. Little things.) Despite this, the attitude presented to the hoi polloi by those in charge has left me with the square root of negative zero warm fuzzies on their ability to give bent fucks about "things used by companies that aren't the top 20%". At the moment, I'm really not predicting a huge uptake. By the time VMware pull their finger out, they'll be fighting an uphill battle against entrenched players, even with their "built in market" of ESXi license holders.

HP has Lefhand, and Lefthand is good. Unfortunately, it's priced out of the SMB space and there is a general feeling of neglect to the product. Few announcements, little rah-rah and less discussion of uptake. That sucks, because it's actually quite awesome.

Nutanix and Simplivity can simply choose tomorrow to turn their offerings into software-only vSANs as well. Nutnaix has a massively evangelical user base, many of the top minds in the field and an established presence around the world. They are full steam ahead, support multiple hypervisors and show no signs of slowing down.

Simplivity have focused on their backup and dedup tech. They view themselves less as a private cloud enabler and more as a storage play. They've got good tech, great people and a fighting chance amongst the morass.

Whichever of these companies you feel is likely to win - and for whatever reason - the addition of Maxta to the mix can only be excellent for end users. More choice, more competition, more pressure to innovate, differentiate, diversify and push the boundaries of software defined storage.

About goddamned time.

1
0

Deploying Turing to see if we have free will

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@t.est

Oik! I gots me two heads!*

*I can only use one at a time.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Oninoshiko

I truly wish I was allowed to use Sie/Hir or Ser. Unfortunately, we'd be back in the same boat; it's so uncommon, the usage of it would detract from the story.

I have started to use Sie in some of my personal stuff.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@GrantB

I prefer to use gender non-determinative pronouns so that I can both acknowledge and dismiss 100% humanity. I don't give a flying Vista what gender, race, creed, religion or whatever "group" you are: you're all clownshoes to me until proven otherwise.

When talking about an indeterminate person I don't feel it's appropriate to use "his" or "hers." Gender determinate pronouns should only be used when a gender is known. Period.

That's like saying "he drove* from A to B."

*method of transportation not known, using a manually controlled vehicle as the descriptor "just because."

0
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Stop making me think about sex. It's irrelevant.

You're not allowed to use "their." That is something that the patriarchy uses to pretend women don't exist whilst simultaneously attempting to appear unbiased. A bunch of feminists decided that they didn't like it so they set upon a campaign to convince the world that using the plural form of pronouns was abuse of grammar - not to mention demonstrating "gender bias" - so they decided that everyone should default to the feminine pronouns instead.

In case you missed the memo this is huge in US journalism right now, and it has become "the thing" in SF tech circles as well.

0
3
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: about God: She's black

She's black what? A poodle? A paramecium? Black hole? You're still being an "-ist" if you assume God is human/humanoid/human-like/human-aligned at all.

Of course, there's the part where God doesn't exist, but let's just set that to one side for now...

0
0

Watch out EMC and vendor pals, Cisco's set to flog you with Whiptail

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Watch out FusionIO

Wow. You people don't think laterally. You turn Whiptail into a "like a FusionIO card" by making it one blade per chassis. That will then connect via the chassis' internal network infrastructure to the other blades in the chassis. The chassis-local Whiptail accelerates the local UCS nodes while also going using cross-chassis communication channels to make sure data is replicated in another blade in one of the other chassis.

This isn't fucking rocket science here.

It's also how you make the claim that "Whiptail isn't there to compete with EMC." It's not...at least not EMC's spinning disk stuff. EMC will provide you bulk storage that all your chassis will talk to. Whiptail will provide chassis-local acceleration and serve as a new tier of "fast storage".

Whiptail isn't a broadside at EMC, it's slitting Pernix Data's throat, along with it the margins that currently go to FusionIO, Micron or LSI in the form of their PCI-E cards.

That EMC wants to get into the same space is of no consequence. there are plenty of players.

Mark my words; Whiptail will evolve from a SAN into something closer to an acceleration tier. A hybrid, if you will, between Pernix and Tintri. Dangerous stuff...

2
1

Rackspace hurries out 'Solum', a half-formed platform cloud project

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: core components of the service, such as networking, remain critically unstable

Openstack doesn't have to be balls-to-the-wall fast and take advantage of every single feature or eek out every single % of performance. It needs to be "good enough". It needs to provide freedom from lockin and - most of all - a means to escape the "just one more license" fetish that companies like Microsoft have.

The "best" technology doesn't always win. Now go cuy in your betamax. I'm going to spin up a cloud whose software costs don't go up 15%+ per year.

0
0

It's NOT an iPad - but that's FINE: I learned to LOVE Microsoft's Surface 2

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Still don't see any reasons to buy it @Bucky O'Hare

To be fair "runs fast, is well built and has Microsoft Office" fulfills most requirements that I have to deploy a field unit to my staff and most of my customers. All that's missing is:

1) Genuine "all day" batter life. (12 hours of RDP or 16 hours of Web).

2) A price point that is closer to $500 than $1000

Right now, if I am going to drop $1200+ on something it will be a Lenovo X230. Why? Because - while expensive - it can be equipped with an additional battery and an expanded internal one to meet the battery life requirements without giving up on the others.

So surface is close. If only they'd make the damned thing into a netbook form factor and replace Windows 8 with Windows 7...

Man, I'd love a notebook that well designed.

0
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: a f*#k 'em attitude?

"A f*#k 'em attitude" is pretty standard for most developers, as this forum thread would seem to obviate.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@SuccessCase

You are arguing a point I never made and trying to change the discussion past your original assertion, which it the point I was arguing to begin with.

You asserted that the fundamental platform of standards-based browser-delivered apps is inadequate. I said it is not.

You then went on a tangent about how "so many developers are producing native apps for mobile devices."

I said "but standards-based apps are still being developed that are just as good as those native apps and continue to be supported."

I am not talking about why developers choose to be egocentric assholes that place their needs above those of their customers. I merely said that standards-based development was possible, is the superior choice for the end users and that companies should avoid lock-in by moving their applications to said standards-based platforms.

It is possible to do. It is being done even by the very same companies you hold up as producing native mobile clients and ultimately helps companies escape lockin.

Your arguments have fucking nothing to do with "the fundamental suitability of the platform".

There are many reasons that people choose one design choice over another that have nothing to do with the platform capability. As I stated before, it's a lot more about the psychology of the matter than anything else. (And the lock-in political power games played by the platform owners specifically designed to prevent companies from building cross platform apps.)

Your arguments made a claim and backed it up with bloody nothing that was related to it.

Oh, and as for "be nice when I talk to you," here's a giggle: no.

You have no more right to dictate my behavior in a forum than you do dictating my purchasing decisions to suit your personal agenda. My irritating and flagranty douchily trolly behavior is purposeful and chosen specifically to illustrate my point. I'm the consumer. I get to do what I want. You're the vendor. Do what I say or I go elsewhere. I have no reason to listen to you; on the forum, as a vendor or anywhere else. You do not compel or have a reason to expect my obedience. If you want my compliance you fucking earn it.

In fact, I have a better idea: why don't you stop wasting time on internet forums and go put some effort into actually developing things that are good for your customers and meet their needs without imposing externalities upon them. (In this case, in the form of locking them into closed platforms where the costs constantly ratchet upwards.)

I'm exactly as nice as the situation warrants. Address your actual assertion - rather than arguing past it with irrelevant dogma - and we'll be fine. If you want to argue the politics of platform selection, then start a new thread. Your assertion was about the fundamental capability. That's to do with tech, and you've provided zero evidence that the technology behind standards-based application development is lacking.

1
3
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@SuccessCase

If you honestly think that the fundamental capabilities of the platform to deliver a smooth and fast experience aren't there for standards-based platforms then you haven't been paying attention for some time.

I will agree with you 100% if you are trying to limit yourself to the top-end applications requiring breaking performance. But I will disagree vehemently about the other 99.99999% of applications. Even on a moderns smartphone. For the overwhelming majority of apps, web-based is more than fast enough and has been for some time.

The fact that existing web developers don't know how to use the functionality enabling acceleration is more a function of shitty developers than "the fundamental capabilities of the platform."

AS to you "but it's *hard* to code for the differences in multiple browsers" whinge; Bullshit. I flat out don't buy it. It's far harder to recode native apps for every platform. The only way that native apps are easier than standards-based apps is if you are telling a goodly chunk of the user population to eat shit because you're lazy and you get to dictate which native platform they use. That's not actually solving the problem, that's just the developer being a dickwad.

And then you finish off by saying "well, except Google seem to have solved all of this." Which sort of makes your entire rant about "the fundamental capabilities of the platform" a steaming sack of horseshit, doesn't it?

Standards-based development in browsers is a fine platform for 99.9%+ of non-video-game applications out there. (There it's probably only about 80% ready.) Everything else has nothing to do with the fundamental capabilities of the platform and everything to do with whiny, arrogant developers who feel that the end user should bent to suit them instead of providing applications that suit the end user.

I have zero sympathy for any developer who just wants to be able to use the objective-C skills they've honed for years. They're the ones selling a product. I'll not buy it unless it's what I want.

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @SuccessCase

Well, if so, that's one example amongst literally thousands of others who choose standards-compliant means to reaching multiple platforms over native apps. Facebook has the resources to write multiple apps for multiple platforms and maintain umpteen separate code bases. Most don't.

Of course, if one is a True Believer in native apps (like you seem to be) then "multiple separate code bases" isn't a problem. You just tell your users to use whatever you dictate and believe that they'll meekly comply.

Frankly, I don't put developers on such a pedestal. They're disposable. They comply with my demands as a customer or they fuck the hell off. It isn't my job to alter my business model, OS selection or device selection to meet the desires of some jumped-up code monkey. It's the code monkey's job to write what I want for the platform I want if they want to get paid.

If you're Facebook you can do that with native apps (apparently) and fuck the inefficiencies of the process. Very - very - few others can afford that.

But...wait...what's this? Can it be?!?

https://www.facebook.com/

Facebook's primary offering is a web application using standards after all! They merely have peripheral applications that may (or may not, depending on your view) provide a subjectively "better" experience on different form factors that are coded natively.

Holy shit.

Even the enormous behemoth that you rip up as your example of native appness still seems to believe that providing it's wares primarily through a cross-platform, standards-compliant application delivery mechanism is critical to their business. Whodathunkit?

3
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@SuccessCase

I think you need to delve a little bit into the details of what you're talking about here. The majority of "native apps" being written for these devices are little more than wrappers around a web app. The technologies used are web technologies. HTML, AJAX, Javascript and so on and so forth. The difference is in presentation. Even Microsoft has enabled and encouraged these technologies as the foundation of the next generation of "native" apps.

Users are used to the "native app" style of presentation; I.E. that it has it's own dedicated window, does not appear to be in a browser, etc. This is psychology and sophistry not technological requirement.

The difference between this and a true "native app", however, is that this development is still a standards-compliant development that is portable between systems. In fact, it typically calls the native system renderer and expects it "just work" with the relevant standards.

Psychologically, users are trained to think of "native apps" as "real apps". So you have to present them as such. Realistically, however, you code them using open standards and you use internetworked APIs to communicate information. The days of truly native apps that are coded to be platform specific are coming to a close.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@SuccessCase

No, actually, it says lots about how many shitty coders there are out there. I can name you hundreds of fantastically coded browser-based apps. I can also point you at millions of terribly coded native apps.

You seem willing to over look this massive quantity of awful native apps while using a comparatively similar quantity of awful browser apps as a cudgel. All you're doing is demonstrating your own bias and inability to make side-by-side comparisons in an objective manner.

Shitty developers are everywhere.

Browsers have a lot of limitations that would be perfectly good targets. Limitations that native apps (normally) don't have. (Though those are disappearing.) "There are bad apps for them" isn't one of them.

Browsers do, however, have one massive advantage over native apps: a single set of universal standards to code to. It was what Java was supposed to be, be never was. Sure, there are some differences and some accommodation for browser quirks required, but far less than Java...and way less than recompiling your native app with proprietary APIs.

Standards-based browser-apps are inclusive; they are open to almost everyone on all devices, all platforms. Native apps are exclusive: they target only that which the developer feels is important.

A browser based app is the developer saying "I am here to meet your needs; I will work to help your business grow by adapting my application to how you work." Native apps are the developer saying "I know better than you; if you want to use my software you'll do things exactly how I say, in the environment I say you'll do them in."

Of course, all of it - browser or native - relies on your developers not being terrible. But the fundementals of the medium are solid. Have been for some time.

6
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Should b Working

"Surface Pro 2 called"

Then ran out of batteries. Shortly thereafter is was recharged briefly before being flung out a window because it treats desktop apps - and the majority of users - like third-class citizens.

10
4
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Andy Prough

You could install a lot of applications on the Surface Pro 2...but why would you? The mouse is a third-class input method, the OS feels like dyslexic finger painting and the battery is still shit.

Put the money into getting your apps ported to open standards and run 'em as web apps on the many available platforms that don't suck*. Windows 7, ChromeOS, Android, iOS, Bada or Tizen...just to name a few!

*Bonus points; by making your apps browse-based, they still work in OSes that suck, like Windows 8 and Windows RT.

8
10
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Bucky O' Hare

If you read The Register you'll know I don't speak nice about anyone unless it's true...but Tim isn't For Sale. I'll not say I agree with the man in all his works, but he's honorable and believes what he writes.

Besides, if you're a fan of Microsoft's paint-by-numbers OS (and Tim is) then the Surface 2 is a wonderful little machine. Had a chance to give one a quick poke and it looks to be nearly as well crafted as my Asus Transformer!

So really then, it's a question of "do you want Windows 8 or Windows RT with that?" If you don't, well, there's lots of other options. If you do...Microsoft seem to be offering a good machine.

Nothing paid-for about that.

15
3

They've taken my storage hostage ... now what?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

I know you're a tech god that doesn't even need to read an article before making completely misinformed comments...but YOU'RE AND YOUR. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR OWN INFLATED EGO.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

14
0

Tracing the direction of data centre travel

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: We don't care how the data gets there, only that it does get there

When your car breaks down, you take it to the mechanic. If you have enough cars in your fleet you might employ a full time mechanic. Should you employ a full-time mechanic if you have only one car? Two? Ten?

The network admin is never going to go away. The number of them required, however, will diminish.

0
0

Microsoft crams fat Azure cloud pipe into delicate on-premises biz boxes

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

I managed to get Pistoncloud set up in about 2 hours. Azure on-premises takes an average of 2 days. So fuck your assertion with a mottled goat.

Oh, or were you trying to compare using the unbelievably expensive NSA backdoored Azure U.S.A. public version to a local, secure, minimal-margin-to-another-vendor Openstack install?

Please, do elaborate.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Azure hosted? Me likey.

Azure service provider (where the service provider is subject only to my nation's laws)? Grand.

Azure U.S.A? Hell no.

No amount of "but you can manage your own keys, see? See?!?" I ever going to make me trust the yanks. Nothing short of some pretty massive government reforms will even begin to restore my trust.

Too bad that Microsoft has decided that they'll market Azure service provider while simultaneously raising fees to punitive levels in an attempt to drive those selfsame service providers out of business. The end result is me not really trusting Microsoft at all.

Oh well: Openstack is largely Good Enough. Onwards.

1
0

Impending Windows XP doom breathes life into flagging PC sales

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Intractable Potsherd

I think you have a problem with your brain being missing. But thanks nonetheless!

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Philip Lewis

The Ballmer Peak theory of alcohol consumption applies.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @SoaG

a) you have no idea

b) why thank you!

c) trolling is stress relief

d) I have to be somewhat clean about the ranting. I work here and all...

d) (there are two ds?) Glad to see someone is right around here

e) the wife agrees

f) I prefer it in reverse order; social inhibition removal enhances the fun!

:)

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@AC re: $100/seat

Most companies hate their customers, it seems. I'll never understand it. But I will fight it.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Sandtitz

I personally think that $100/install/year is the "sweet spot" pricing. It generates more than enough revenue to continue support - even to generate quite a bit of profit - and doesn't feel overly onerous, even to the smallest of SMB customers.

Truth be told, you might be able to jack that up to $200 a year, if you were willing to write up goodwill for individuals and SMBs (maybe create a sliding scale?) and thus get even more profit. I don't think that's out there for either Microsoft or the customer.

The key is that you need zero minimum numbers to receive this ongoing support, and it can't have the costs ratchet skyward with each passing year. Also note that I think Red Hat should be forced to offer the same support options for RHEL. Indeed, my opinion on this is nuanced; I don't think that an OS company should be forced to support a product indefinately when there is only one user remaining.

I believe that the support horizon should be determined as a function of peak userbase. If 25% of your peak users for that product version are still using it, you must provide a support option. I'd say that should go down as low as 5% of peak users. I consider it a matter of customer protection, and I think it should apply to all developers of critical software, not simply operating system vendors.

By law they should have two options: offer support for a reasonable fee until the userbase drops below 5% of peak or lenience the source code out to a third party who will provide that support. The third party may be held to massively restrictive NDAs not allowing them to share code, etc.

Regarding the other topic: The Kingston SSDs have been in a RAID 5 of 8 SSDs since the article was published. It has been the primary iSCSI storage for my testlab. I hammer the ever living begeezus out of it all day, every day. Not one SSD is has even used 10% of it's lifespan yet, and they are working like tanks. Still delivering over 10Gbits/sec of throughput to my VMware cluster. What more can I ask?

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@SoaG

I'm not sure why Microsoft would bother paying a deep web troll either. That said, the access patterns, message resonance with Microsoft's official marketing slides and entry-level textbook social media techniques in play make my spidy senses tingle.

Remember; this sort of deep web monitoring and engaging (though not remotely so ineptly) is one of the things that my company does. We tend more to focus on opinion aggregation and actual community engagement rather than marketing message core dumps, but you get to meet others in the industry when you do it. (Or rather, Josh does it. I mostly meet people and then run the hell away. Social media types give me the shivers.)

Let's look at the paid Microsoft shill's statement that is the focus for my rage:

Over a few years an upgrade to Windows 7 or Windows 8 will save most organisations money compared to supporting a legacy infrastructure - from the lower TCO - including fewer security vulnerabilities, better performance, greater reliability, better power saving, etc. etc.

This is pure horseshit. While the above is true in certain circumstance - and I'd be glad to write you chapter on verse on all of that if you want to kindly drop a few dozen bills in my bank account - the reality is that it simply isn't true for the majority of businesses. (Though parts of it may be true for most businesses.)

It is the absoluteness of the statement - oh so very on message - that removes the ability to have a rational discussion about this. A discussion about why one should upgrade needs to start with individual analyses of the environments and the factors holding back upgrades. Those need then be analyzed one at a time and addressed - or not - as needs and abilities dictate.

It's textbook marketing, however. Lifted damned near verbatim from some slides I have on a USB stick upstairs, emblazoned with Microsoft's logo. The thing is, the application of such in a deep web marketing scenario typically isn't so...

inept.

The idea behind doing this sort of stuff is to engage with the individuals that are off message, draw out the reasons for their recalcitrance and then (referring to your trusty message-of-the-day handbook) meet the concerns one at a time by providing solid rebuttals backed by evidence. The marketing theory behind this class of engagement is that by demonstrating that even the most recalcitrant of individuals' issues can be dealt with in a reasonable fashion your efforts are amplified amongst the community you are working with.

Oh, and you also typically identify yourself as working on behalf of the company in question. Works fucking wonders for companies within the Spiceworks, Zenoss and Puppet communities, as well as the absolutely stellar Twitter social media teams that I've worked with. (Note: Microsoft's Twitter teams are awful because they aren't authorized to actually help you.)

The horrific ineptitude is why I am willing to believe that this AC is indeed a paid Microsoft Deep Web FUD coward. Because Microsoft is historically unbelievably terrible at social media and community engagement of all kinds.

If you want community engagement that Just Fucking Works look at companies like Veeam, Simplivity, Nuntanix and - increasingly - Symantec. Matt Stephenson (@packmatt73) is truly godlike with regards to community engagement and he is really helping Symantec reform how it's helping customers.

There's the key, however: helping customers. When you engage a proper deep web nerd - Josh from my company, eGeek, or Matt from Symantec, Rick Vanover from Veeam, JMT from VMware, Gabe Chapman from Simplivity or so on - they use channels like Twitter, Spiceworks or even The Register's forums to find out what needs to be done to meet that customer's needs, then get the right people joined up to make that happen.

Does it shock me at all that Microsoft would put a body into place that goes through the motions, but has no authority to help the customer and can only repeat pre-canned statements from heavily vetted slides? No. Call their support. Talk to their Twitter guys. Interact with their PR staff. Deal with Microsoft in any official or semi-official capacity when you are less than a 2500-seat enterprise customer and this is exactly what you get.

So would Microsoft waste money on a meat sack to "social media" EL Reg's forums? Fuck yes. And that meat sack would behave exactly like the one that's been plaguing us for the past few months.

Microsoft is corporately incapable of fielding a body that behaves in any other way...but they'd try really, really hard because everyone else is doing it. Then they'll abandon it after three structuring attempts because they simply can't understand why it works for others but not them.

*sigh*

10
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: It's 6:15am PST

There are lots of people seeking to praise MS in different and increasingly inaccurate ways as well. Or slag odd Android, Apple, and my tea kettle, too.

This is a combination of Dunning Kruger and Brand Tribalism. (Yes, I have an article in the works on this. Can you tell?)

I think there's plenty of space for actual, coherent discussion on the topic, but only if we all put away our brand tribalism. Sadly, it seems increasingly few individuals are so inclined. Microsoft is so bloody polarizing because they both make fantastic technology and fuck up the delivery, licensing and support of said technology to a degree managed by few companies still in existence.

To hings your view of a company on any one thing - "The tech is good" or "the delivery is poor" - is to focus on one tree at the expense of the wider ecosytem. It is the man claiming loudly and resoundingly that he has/has not seen a change in his local weather patterns thus climate change must/must not be true.

To have a conversation about such things requires the ability to objectively analyze the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not only as they apply to you and yours, but to others as well. It also requires the ability to put things into perspective. How many companies, users, dollars, etc is represented by you and yours? How does that market segment change when you look at different countries or regions? How does the local culture affect buying patterns, acceptance of change or even the ability to obtain the financial resources necessary to deal with upgrades in a Microsoft-friendly manner?

What industries are the various people in? Are the magic wants of internet black-and-white thinking going to apply? Can that person/company/etc even upgrade? Why? Why not? Where are the sticking points and how can things be addressed? Should they be addressed?

None of this lends itself well to sound bites. None of it fits in a tweet. Certainly none of this is something that can be broken down into emotive - and emotional - outbursts, generalizations or packets of "me, thus you!"

I also warn of the dangers of proclaiming "they disagree with me, thus they are ignorant of IT in general!" For it is entirely possible - and any professional, rational being would take the moment to consider - that they know some things that you do not. (Or that their circumstances are different from your own.)

In some cases it is indeed ignorance that clouds the discussion. In far too many, however, it is ignorance of the factors that are critical to businesses that are beyond IT itself.

Just because - or someone else - believes they can craft the perfect network for someone over the internet by edict or fiat doesn't mean you have the foggiest clue in the most secret of fnords what you're on about.

And that - right there - is one of the most devilishly complex and painfully overlooked Hard Truths of our industry.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: It's 6:15am PST

You are wrong. I never said "how dare they not support 12 year old software." I said "how dare they not offer us the ability to pay a reasonable price for ongoing support" or, barring that "how dare they not license the source code to a third party who will provide ongoing support for a reasonable price?"

I never once asked that Microsoft continue to support XP for free ad aeternum. Nor have I said "I hate Windows 7." I believe I said "Windows 7* needs an up arrow on Windows Explorer" but that is easily fixed with Classic Shell." I definitely said "fuck Microsoft's bullshit VDI licensing that is trying to make individuals and SMBs bankrupt", but that has nothing to do with Windows 7 (or even 8) and everything to do with Microsoft's despotic licensing department.

Please get your facts straight before attacking someone. Cheers.

*But Windows 8 can indeed get bent.

12
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

It's 6:15am PST

Factoring in time to get coffee...call it 3 hours before an Anonymous Coward is in this thread to spread FUD and lie to us outright?

Microsoft! It's great! And so's the marketing message! They treat their customers just fine and in no way hiked up all the fees to the point of bankruptcy to screw their customers! I love them, yes I do! Oooh, er, missus...

Hey, can I have a cushy job FUDing forums for MS now too?

9
0

Hey, how'd that guy get to be a BAZILLIONAIRE?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Brisk pace? Or merely a pretty face?

Somehow, my friend, I doubt an A/C mask would suffice to discuss that topic in the open. You know how it is. (Though you've my e-mail if you like.)

The noodlier thing though is that I have to question you emergent hyperhuman hypothesis. I don't believe it's possible without a truly massive metamorphic change. Genetic shift of the "that's no longer one of us" variety. That becomes a debate of Punctuated Evolution. Are we indeed tuned in to Darwin's Radio, or is it a gradual process, small mutation by each?

Put bluntly, I do not believe that a hominid of our design with roughly our cranial capacity is capable of being a modern Leonardo. No matter how you arrange the internal physics to maximize neuron density, there simply isn't enough physical space in there to provide the data storage and processing requirements to be Leonardo.

Baring a fluke of evolution we're not going to see some ubermensch crawl forth from the genetic underbrush and lead us all into Jobsian salvation. I'm also not seeing the singularity approaching with any real alacrity, so the One True Wikian seems to be a stalled path as well.

I'd love to delve further, but that requires blitting from the back buffers. A side channel will have to do.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Pretty sure that the e-mail is in my "sent items" folder which would be in the *.ost on at least two local systems, in the exchange server's data store and probably a dozen backups. Why?

I referred to the e-mail to give some context; that there was some back-and-forth here that had occurred but whose details are largely irrelevant. I'm unsure that anyone would care about the contents of the mail itself - beyond the snippet I paraphrased - thus see no point in reproducing it verbatim.

That said, the fact that Pernix views write cache as a new tier of storage is relevant. Not only do they view it as such, but it struck me as being so after even relatively brief testing. Conveying that is the important part; jibber jabber on the side band is...boring.

0
0

FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS: Microsoft faces prising XP from Big Biz

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Embrace the inner Trekkie

LCARS doesn't use space efficiently and - frankly - seems to have a lot of buttons that do fuck all. Why would I want that?

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Are you feeling lucky, punk?

A) I entirely agree it should be in place for all vendors.

B)The threshold for legal support should be "a given % of remaining active users as compared to peak usage."

C)I see it as a natural extension of laws in many countries requiring guarantees or guarantees of support combined with laws that ensure third parties are allowed to manufacture parts for cars and other such equipment.

To put it more bluntly: if a company (Microsoft) isn't willing to provide support for a product when a significant % of peak users are still using that product then a third party should be allowed to obtain the source code and maintain it under license. It is no different in my mind than saying a third party can manufacture brake pads and shoes for your car (thus extending support beyond that which the manufacturer would provide on their own with no laws or competitive forcings.)

Microsoft is the subject of immediate discussion. Do not make the mistake of assuming I feel they should be uniquely beholden to these principles.

Of course, of you're one of those rabid Tea Party types that is viciously opposed to consumer protection laws, you'll be violently against such things and the conversation can go nowhere but horrible from here.

5
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@AC Re: @MS deep web social media shill

Great riposte. Respond to the hard questions with ad hominem. I should thusly consider your opinions valid why?

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @MS deep web social media shill -@Trevor_Pott

No. I am not upset with Microsoft. There are plenty of amazingly talented people at Microsoft producing excellent technology to the best of their abilities. I am furiously livid with Microsoft's licensing department.

Microsoft is not a homogenous entity. I can loathe and despise one collection of soulless cretins while being quite enamored of the others.

5
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Stop bashing Vista

As someone who uses both Windows XP and Windows 7 heavily, going back to Vista (or in my case Server 2008) is still a fucking nightmare. While the OS may be "usable" now (for "fuck Windows Serach" values of "usable") the UI is pants. It's all the worst parts of Windows 7 and all the worst parts of Windows XP mashed together into a clusterfuck of horror.

Windows 7's UI is superior in (most) ways to Windows XP. You need Classic Shell to get a good menu (and to get back your up arrow) as well as networktray to get a per-NIC indicator and quick link to network adapters. Beyond that, you're good...and those two changes are free (beer and speech) and can be scripted into your installs.

Vista just has so many little niggly things that even two patches in the UI feels unfinished. Using it for any legnth of time makes me wonder how people dogfooded this thing without going stark raving mad.

A lot like my feelings about Windows 8, funnily enough...

3
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@AC

Why are you a douche canoe? Is it a disease? Some terrible genetic disorder beyond your control?

Enquiring minds want to know...

8
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: A major flaw

Nobody in this thread has said "we won't pay Microsoft to support Windows XP." We have said "fuck Windows 8" and "fuck the Windows 7-era VDI licensing" and even "there's lots of XP out there that can't be updated."

Ding me $100/installation/year and I'll gladly pay for the support costs. Just give me the fucking choice. Don't try forcing me onto the "new" version with the lie that "newer is better." If you want to sell me on "better' then prove it with facts and figures applicable to my situation. And that of my clients.

Otherwise, I'll spend the money I would have spent paying Microsoft support buying third party applications and hardware to defend my now out-of-support Windows XP installations.

Paying a reasonable amount simply isn't the issue. Paying an unreasonable amount it. Being forced to upgrade is. Are you capable of understanding the difference?

9
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@DougS

They should be forced to support it forever, so long as people are willing to pay a support subscription...and that subscription should be available even to consumers.

$100/year/installation would be acceptable.

Or they could just fix VDI licensing.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Oh come on...

"XP Embedded is supported by Microsoft unitl January 2016. If you're running XP Embedded SP3 you have a further two years after that.

If industry can't get its shit together by 2018, something is drastically wrong."

I still have stuff running on Windows 2000. The manufacturer of the original industrial equipment is long since out of business. Replacing all units with the nearest replacement equipment (which frankly isn't as good) would cost 5 year's worth of annual gross revenue.

Should we just close our doors because legacy support offends you? How about you explain that to the new mother who just gave birth? "Sorry, lady, you won't have a job to come back to because it offends some anonymous asshat on the internet?"

Get real. Life's bigger than your prejudices and certainly bigger than your massive "worldly" experience.

11
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@ragrath

If I invest heavily in moving my applications, changing interfaces and retraining users should I

A) Invest in another iteration of the same locked-down, lock-in ecosystem from a vendor that demonstrably gives no fucks whatsoever

B) Invest in a corporate stable Linux distro that allows me choice?

The costs are roughly the same - I ran them - and the Linux option doesn't require me to scrap and rewrite my entire business plan and end-user workflow in order to support it.

To wit: fuck Microsoft with a bag of badgers until they both listen to end users regarding interfaces and fix the fucking VDI licensing so that we can use computers how we want to.

9
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @MS deep web social media shill

It emphatically isn't $100/seat/year. I would galdly pay Microsoft 100$/seat/year to be able to use RDP or proper VDI to access software on systems that I own.

No, this is far - far - worse. This is $100 for every single device used to access a given system pet year. Do you own a home PC, 3 tablets, 2 smartphones, RDP in to your home VM from inside other VMs, servers, client sites, hotels, etc? $100 per device per year. Last year I clocked myself in at over 300 devices.

Microsoft says that if I upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7 I have to pay them over $30,000 a year just for the right to access my personal virtual machine at home.

That's way different from $100/seat/year.

So where is Microsoft's "I take weekends and evenings off" paid shill on this topic? Where are his facts and figures? Where are the numbers showing me ROI and TCO that apply to my situation and that of my clients? Indeed, that of any real-world clients that aren't a cherry-picked group of American Enterprise customers who use access methods and patterns from 10 years ago?

I want to be wrong on this, Mr Microsoft marketing guy, please, do prove me wrong on this.

Oh, and no, that bullshit Redmondian line that RDS is as good or better than VDI? Fuck that noise with an angry goat. I have applications that will only work on client operating systems and refuse to work on Server ones. Besides, even if I could get it to work...why should I have to pay thousands - and put in a significant amount of administrative effort trying to get shims to work - just to to what I can do on XP Pro by enabling RDP?

Remote desktop services is not VDI. It's a fucking kludge - a terrible kludge - that we have to put up with only because Microsoft's dark-side clown brigade (composed of the most elemental evil this universe has to offer, congealed in the darkest gutters humanity has ever known) decided that we just aren't allowed to run the client OS in a VM and use it in a manner that works perfectly fine except for their ridiculous licensing.

I want persistent desktops for my users, Microsoft. Centrally located and administered. Simply put, I want the ability to field persistent Windows 7 desktops. No layers of complex management. Just working systems that are simple to set up, simple to control, simple to use.

I'm waiting, Microsoft. Tell me how your upgrades are adding value and going to save me money. Tell me how upgrading isn't going to choose between bankruptcy or retooling my entire personal - and corporate - data access workflow to something far less efficient. Tell me how you're out there for the customer, Microsoft.

Engage with me, damn it. I'm a tech blogger, a Microsoft partner and - far more importantly - a customer. Surely one of those categories of individuals still matters to the corporate overmind.

Answer my goddamned questions. Provide me with facts and figures. Show me how I can do what I want to do, how I want to do it and do so in a manner that will in fact save me money by upgrading.

Don't run and hide when I ask you the hard questions, you fucking cowards.

Your paid shills are all over this forum. What good are they to me, to you or to any of your customers if they can't answer the simple questions put to them? If they can't prove their claims in front of all?

Prove me wrong, Microsoft, and I'll gladly write you a massive article series about how wrong I was, and how awesome Microsoft is. I'll write several. Prove that my understanding of your licensing and it's impacts on myself any my clients are incorrect and I will champion Microsoft and it's policies...because if you can do so then Microsoft will deserve to be championed.

Until then, stop lying to people in the forums of The Register. Put up or shut up. Can you do so before XP turns into a pumpkin? The clock is ticking.

Tick tock

Tick tock

Tick Tock

34
0