40 terawatt. 40 watts is just going to tickle.
6004 posts • joined 31 May 2010
40 terawatt. 40 watts is just going to tickle.
I seriously doubt that an official Microsoft Start Menu will "kill" Classic Shell or Start8. Remember that the start menu is a part of explorer.exe. Worst case scenario is that you need to do a complete shellectomy and replace explorer.exe with something less asstastic.
Now, that would be a lot more work than knocking together a new start menu, but it wouldn't be the first time complete replacement shells were created for Windows. They'd cost a big of money, but after some initial proliferation, the world would settle on a standard set of two or three.
We aren't beholden to Microsoft for the UI. Quite frankly, I think Microsoft should go ahead and continue screwing the UI up royally. If Windows 9 doesn't have a positive reception form the market either then there will be real effort put into new shells. The viability of sticking with Windows 7 once Windows 9 comes out is pretty small. But we aren't going to collectively accept the design decisions Microsoft tries to force on us unless we actually agree with those decisions.
What's more, Microsoft can no more lock down the ability to replace the shell than it can throw out it's military contracts, contracts with banks, etc. There are lots of instances in which full shell replacements are in use in critical areas. It's just time they made their way into the public consciousness.
Microsoft's strategy with the cutbacks seems to be "cut all departments, divisions, and marketing expenditures that our customers, partners and staff actually enjoy or which might make life easier for individuals who fall into one of those three groups." They are in turn going to reinvest in products, technologies and services that are of dubious value to the mass market, to non-Americans and to the channel that has built their empire for the past 30 years.
That says to me that Microsoft is trying for an Oracle-like high-margin play, preferably with recurring revenue (SA, Cloud), and to hell with popularity, mass market, etc. I see a few problems.
1) They historically suck at high margin plays.
2) Everyone in the entire tech industry, from startups to megaliths is trying for the exact same areas. Most of them have a head start, better tech, more evangelists and marketing that knows how to convince fortune 2000 companies that low value for dollar is actually high value for dollar.
3) Because everyone on the planet is trying to drain the high-margin money out of the fortune 2000 there is a massive opportunity in the midmarket that noone else is trying to exploit. This is where Microsoft made it's billions. It's also the very segment that Microsoft is busy alienating.
4) The SMB market has been entirely abandoned, and they aren't buying this "cloud" bullshit, because the value for dollar is basically nonexistant. Microsoft used to at least play here in a token fashion, and it earned them happy joy-joy fuzzies from the proletariat. Those goodfeels are now going elsewhere.
5) Unlike the SMB market, Microsoft hasn't abandoned the consumer market...they're just really, really bad at it. They aren't getting any of the required goodfeels from here.
3, 4 and 5 basically mean that mass market public opinion is doing a PlaysForSure(TM) on Microsoft; if their high -margin-or-bust play fails, they are utterly fucked. They've nothing to fall back on, because they're actively working to drive away customers in all other segments. I don't get it. It looks to me like Microsoft is making a hell of a gamble that they can do "high margin" better than those with decades of experience playing that game...and systematically annihilating any possible backup plans in the meantime.
I wrote a while ago that Microsoft will be hard to kill because it's got so many different segments on the go that it could afford to have several of them not work out. What I didn't count on would be that Microsoft would actively go out of it's way to start killing off as many of these segments as possible.
Microsoft looks hellbent on going from "strongly diversified damned-near unkillable colossus" to "desperately gambling one-trick cloudpony". It's absolutely irrational.
I'm not sure what you mean? China has made corruption a captial crime and is slowly altering both it's government structure and culture to cope with a nation that is both increasingly a mixed economy and has access to unlimited information.
Don't assume that just because China has the Great Firewall today that they will seek to censor information at the same level that they do now forever. Will they always censor some information? Probably; but so do all nations, including the US and UK. Will they forever censor information about Tienanmen? Likely not.
The goal of the Party is to stay in power. That means adapting to changing circumstances, not blindly ignoring them. The difference with them is that they have the time, the culture and the means to adapt at a pace that won't cause massive social upheaval or calls for the government's head.
They can push the really horrible stuff out of the public consciousness until it's so far in the past that it just won't matter to the average citizen. They can milk a gentle lessening of restrictions and increased "freedoms" for all the "we love our government" goodthink that is possible.
China is slowly but surely moving towards a mostly free - but still regulated - press and internet, from a restricted and locked down variant of the same. It's people will love the government for it. Western nations, on the other hand, are moving to a mostly free - but increasingly regulated - press and internet as well...but they're coming from a position of nearly absolute freedom. Their citizens will hate them for it.
China is not going to one day implode because it's citizens will have access to western schools of thought and then turn on their government in recognition that The West Was Always Right and that demand change and revolution. Far from it. China is cultivating a great deal of nationalism and pride in it's citizens who increasingly view the west as immoral, decadent, corrupt cowboys.
As much as we like to play up the people who leave China because they dislike conditions or the government, we don't seem to notice or care about those who leave our nations or culture behind for the same reasons. Every nation has those unhappy with the folks in power. What is hard to see is that people in other nations can actually be - and often are - quite happy with how things are.
The Chinese population is - by and large - quite happy with the government. They want things to be better, but who doesn't, in any nation? Similarly, it would surprise most westerners to know that Putin has massive support in Russia; their culture, beliefs and morality are actually that different. Like China, they view the west as a corrupting immorality that needs to be opposed.
So no, I really don't think China will fall because people have access to the internet. If anything, it will make them stronger, more educated, better able to collaborate and result in a more sophisticated and technologically advanced society. One that the west is going to have a lot of trouble keeping up with for the rest of this century.
"Stop someone in the street for what used to be a non-arrestable offense and have an automatic warrant to search not only their person, all their computers but now any online account held anywhere in the world."
E-mailing while black is about to become a thing.
I agree. They have been light on sales for some time. That said, they have gone on a big sales hiring spree and have recruited some very good names into the pool. They are capable of recognizing their weaknesses and adapting. Something that - quite frankly - seems to be beyond the big egos of a lot of silicon valley startups.
Maybe VVOLs will kill off the Unique Selling Point of Tintri for a handful of EMC or NetApp die-hards who - quite frankly - never would have bought Tintri anyways. But there's a hell of a lot more to Tintri than just VVOL-like capability.
Tintri Global Center, for one, is bloody grand. Their array management software is better than anything I've seen from competitors and I do rather like the ease with which replication between devices can be set up. Tintri also make good hardware that handles hot/cold block migration between storage tiers very well.
Tintri aren't just a "one trick pony". They're a collection of features and functionality married in one of the most user-friendly ways I've ever had the pleasure of working with, and the storage they provide is damned fast, while being cheaper than other enterprise alternatives.
Diversification into Hyper-V/KVM? Good. I don't know if you've looked at those ecosystems lately, but they're crying out for some of the storage goodness that overwhelms the VMware ecosystem.
You also would have to be a battered-and-fried fool to think that Tintri simply developed their array and then fired all their engineers, thinking they'll just ride their one product off into the sunset forever. Tintri are a software company, and a damned good one at that. They are working on new products and they will sink or swim on their ability to continue cranking out new device, features and so forth at the quality we've come to expect.
Yes, VMware is in the process of trying to do them in. Name just one partner VMware isn't actively trying to put out of business by viciously cloning their product! That's what VMware does, and anyone who chooses to enter the VMware ecosystem should bloody well know that by now.
But VMware's ecosystem is enormous. VMware - for all it's size - just doesn't have the engineering resources to compete with all of them. Not the least of which because VMware is constantly pissing away it's top talent through combinations of vicious internal backbiting politics and simply refusing to listen to some of the great ideas that it's staff generate. Those staff, fed up, leave. And they go on to form startups that VMware then attempts to kill.
Tintri doesn't live in a vacuum. None of these companies do. Tintri has some of the better engineers in the valley and is constantly attracting new talent. VMware's VVOLs are a threat, but one Tintri's known about for bloody ages. They long ago set about diversifying and they'll continue to do so faster than VMware can clone them.
That's how the game is played. No company is an island, and your ability to obtain and retain talent determines your ability to crank out great product. And it's the "great product" bit here that has garnered Tintri (and others) absolutely cult-like loyalty from their customers.
VVOLs will not kill Tintri any more than VSAN will kill Nutanix, or Hyper-V "killed" VMware.
Tintri's staff enjoy working there. They feel that the company has a fighting chance and that they have a real shot at upwards mobility. So long as that remains true, Tintri will keep hold of the best and brightest...and continue to crank out winners.
Silicon Valley is an employee's market. Until that changes, the red tape encumbered, bureaucratic megaliths don't have a chance of wiping out everyone and trundling forward - Redmond-like - unopposed for decades.
Vive la revolution, I say! It's this climate that ensures ideas get listened to...that innovation continues, and doesn't get reassigned to the mailroom, third-class, night shift.
"Except that Google do not make any phones. Apple can do it because they make the phone and the OS and, as far as I can see, that doesn't restrict trade."
Apple make an OS and they only sell that OS tied to their hardware.
Google make an OS that you can use whenever you want.
Google also make a stack of applications which must be used together in order to use various trademarks.
You can still use the core of Android without using Google's apps. You can agree to ship Google's apps with the core of Android and thus get the trademarks. You cannot use iOS (or OSX) any anything you sell. Google are thus less restrictive about their stuff than Apple.
Just ask Amazon, Nokia or Cyanogenmod, all of whom sell software (and in some cases hardware) based off of that core Android distribution.
Sure, they'd love to be able to pick and choose from amongst Google's proprietary apps so that they can compete with elements of the stack that they feel are most profitable, and offload the cost of maintaining the rest of the stack to Google. Who wouldn't? But why should Google be forced to comply? There is lots of competition and they aren't in a monopoly position in either the smartphone or tablet markets.
There simply is no moral or ethical reason that Google should be forced to fund their competitors in this fashion.
Now, when Google reach 95%+ market share and are still using bundling, let's sit down and have a talk. Hell, let's have a talk if/when Google say you can't fork the base of Android without using the app bundle, because then they'd be violating all sorts of laws. Until then, they have exactly as much right to bundling their software products as Apple.
Android *IS* open source. Just like BSD is.
Google's proprietary applications are NOT open source. Just like OSX is not open source.
What's the fucking difference?
Google have made zero attempts to restrict third-party android. They only restrict use of Google's proprietary apps and trademarks. Want to build an Android without the Googliness? Go hard and do so.
Amazon, Nokia and Cynaogen have all made very popular Android forks. Yes, they had to put effort into taking base Android and making it usable. But by the same token, if you want something that newbs can use, you have to do the same thing to BSD. OSX isn't FLOSS for you to run on any device you want. But you're perfectly free to use BSD and slap your own UI on it. Go hard.
But there is nothing in Google's Android contracts that prevent you from building an Android-derivative smartphone/tablet/etc if you want. Go right ahead and do so, and put as many services as you want on it, and brand it yourself. Amazon's done it just fine.
You just can't use Google's proprietary services and applications and Google's trademarks unless you use them as a package. I don't see what's wrong with that. Where is this "preventing competition"? How is this preventing competition?
There are decent alternatives for everything Google makes. If you want to ship an Android Smartphone with your custom map software, but not Google Maps, then do so. Go get an alternative version of the rest of the Google stack - Play, Hangouts, etc - and install them alongside your maps software. Brand it under your name and then compete.
If Ford can say "though shalt not use the term Model E unless we say so" then what the merry hell is the problem with Google saying "thou shalt not use our trademarks and branding unless you agree to our terms?"
Apple can say "thou shalt not install OSX on non-Apple PCs" and there's apparently no problem with that. Your media chums can tell me what I can and can't do with the media I purchase, where I can watch it, on what sized screen and with how many friends and that's apparently totally groovy.
But Google saying "use our entire stack of apps and the UI we designed or you can't use our trademarks" is somehow preventing competition? Please explain this to me using little words, because apparently I'm just to stupid to get why this is a problem.
Google doesn't have a monopoly. Apple is a massive competitor in the Smartphone space and it dominates the tablet space. Microsoft is even almost relevant in these spaces. You don't have to use Android if you want a "free" OS for your devices, there are many others. From Android forks to Tizen to open source Android with services like AppBrain.
So this isn't a "Google is a monopoly thing". It isn't really a "Google is doing something completely different than others". It is - sort of - a bundling thing, but in exactly the same way as "OSX on Mac only" and is more closely related to branding and trademark disputes than any "attempt to use a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another." Google's monopoly on search is not something anyone has presented any evidence that they have tried to leverage to push companies to accept the "all or nothing" clause for Google's app stack on Android.
So I am going to have to go with "this is about people who don't like Google" more than "something Google is doing that is morally or legally bad". Unless, of course, you can explain to me the issue in terms small enough for my pathetically minute comprehensive capabilities.
I think you're incorrect.
Embrace, Extend, Monetize is the Silicon Valley way. It's Seattle's bizarre rain-soaked hooligans that change "monetize" to "extinguish."
Consider, for a moment, Apple. They embraced a BSD distro. They extended into OSX and eventually iOS. They then raked in eleventy squillion
Google hopes to do the same with the Linux kernel, and many of the other core Linux packages. The results are Android, ChromeOS, and the handful of internal distros used to run their datacenters.
What about this is "extinguishing"? They're not pulling an ADHD Redmondian "embrace, extend, PlaysForSure, restart entire project with a new standard under a different name". And, unlike Seattle majors, Google gives a metric holycrap back to the open source community. When was the last time you saw more than token code filter out of Amazon, for example?
Different cultures, man. Different cultures.
But what does it matter? Google say "if you want to use Google-branded software and Google-owned trademarks you have to comply with our designs and use our entire stack. This is because we want anyone who picks up a Google-branded device to have a consistent experience, and so that we can reap the maximum profits (consumer data) from our efforts. If you don't like it, there is always open source Android, which other companies (like Amazon) have built successful platforms on top of."
Why should Google be expected pour billions of dollars into something that then everyone else can simply abscond with, massively fragment the ecosystem, ruin the brand name and image and give Google fuck all in return? I don't see Google saying "we're not going to pay billions upon billions just to slit our own throats" as being exactly mean-spirited.
How is this any different than Apple pumping engineering time and effort into webkit but then building their own branded Safari browser on top of that open source effort? Or Google cranking money into Chromium, then building a branded Chrome browser?
For that matter, how is this any different than Microsoft's logo programs? Intel's Centrino?
Let's say you built a laptop that, instead of including an Intel Wifi card, used a ZTE Zigbee card which only connected to Zigbee APs sold by your company. Why in the name of sweet merry fnord would Intel let you brand that Centrino?
How is that any different than companies stripping all the Google goodies out of Android and then wanting to use the Android brand name and the Google logo?
This isn't about right or wrong. It's about branding. And there are a number of sides to this. There's greed, there's management of consumer expectations and there's even an element of consumer protection to Google's actions.
Google doesn't have everyone's best interests at heart, but neither does Microsoft...and it's Microsoft that's behind this, mark my words.
Streaming an .mkv of 1080p and streaming an uncompressed blu-ray are two totally different things. I can just barely squeak by with a 720p .mkv and light office work on my 411j. But try to stream that .mkv and run a backup from my notebook? Pffffft.
The 413j has a nice CPU - especially when compared to the 411j - but it's still pretty weedy for an SMB.
Never played with a Blackarmour...at least, I don't think I have. Sad that they weren't good.
1 gigabit is roughly 100 megabytes sustained.
And the throughput you get as a nice big sequential read with 4K blocks and a queue depth of at least 8 is very different from a 50% random, 30% write 512b - 8k mxed block with a variable queue depth form 1 to 32. An 814 is absolutely not going to sustain 100 megabytes per second in the latter case. (Which, just by the by, best simulates my access patterns for having my profile and homefolders stored on the Synology while doing basic office work and streaming a blu-ray.)
Access patterns matter.
if you want to install a relevant OS on the WD system, or log onto the Synology via SSH and install the packages, then yes, absolutely. Is ZFS part of the standard OS offering, available through the UI provided by the vendor? No.
But Synology units are Linux, and you can install a different version of Linux, Solaris or OpenIndianna on any x86 Synology or on the WD units, if you so choose.
Depends on your goal. If all you need is a backup target, then any old ARM NAS will do. It doesn't have to go fast, just be steady and reliable. That said, if your goal is to stream 1080p video while also handling some basic file work, yeah, those weedy ARM CPUs are not so great. I don't even know if there is an ARM CPU that can handle a proper NAS for 4K streaming.
Multiple users? Start looking past ARM. Atoms at the very least, but some of the lower power Xeons are great if you want to support more than 25 users. That crappy old D-link is not a proper business NAS. But a higher end Synology or WD Sentinel can handle the task, no problem.
I don't mind the HP microservers, but I honestly prefer the WD Sentinels and Synology's stuff. (ioSafe, if you need a disaster-proof Synology. Now with 5 bays!)
That said, I have a D-link 4-bay here that cost peanuts and has been a great little storage unit for years and years. Similarly, I have been unbelievably impressed with the Netgear 4-bay NAS I have. It's nice that there are options out there. :)
My experiences with La Cie NASes have been universally horrific. Microsoft-licensing-class bad. I hope these Seagate-branded ones are done by a completely different team.
Thems is the ones that Plays For Sure(TM)
Customers last, staff last, partners last, developers last.
Well I'm right skeptical, damn it!
The internet is full of vacillating drain bramaged novelty seekers. Can't we just have ONE place in tech reporting that encourages skepticism?
Get off my goddamned lawn.
In the same vein, having General Alexander be appointed to oversee a UN-wide body whose mandate is to investigate allegations of privacy invasion on an international level is equally in the public interest.
What would "decreasing all books on iTunes to zero for a year" accomplish? Nothing, insofar as Apple was concerned. Poverty for writers and bankruptcy for publishers, most likely.
No. Far better instead to pierce the corporate veil and send the negotiating parties to jail. The only way to really hurt the guilty in these situations is to go after those who made it happen, not corporations. Apple wouldn't notice a few billion in fines and the decision makers at the publishers would be insulated even if the result was those publishers going out of business.
If corporations are people in the USA, deserving of human rights such as religion and freedom of speech, then they should also have the same responsibilities as people. Such as serving jail time for crimes.
"The enemy" is your own citizens?
OpenWRT has had patchy, per-device IPv6 support that appeared and disappeared depending on which build you used. The stuff that was in the trunk for most devices was crap and caused more problems than it solved.
If this is now Officially Supported on all officially supported devices, that is - in fact - Big News.
Now I actually have a reason to wipe and rebuild my WNDR3700V2. I OpenWRTed it a while back (well, the stock firmware is OpenWRT derivative anyways, but I wanted a more up-to-date one,) and then just sort of...left it. It doesn't preserve settings between updates.
This though...this is worth the update.
What the fucking fnord are you talking about? How does "broadening this to human rights abuses" make it "difficult" to deal with Chinese companies? That sounds like some straight up bullshit sinophobia.
Human rights abuses are not "common" in China...or, at least, they are no more common than in the US. Go work an Amazon warehouse, or pick veggies in the fields of a southern state.
There are going to be some companies in China that violate human rights, just as there will be in any country. It absolutely is not common practice, despite what you may have heard in the yankee media.
I was building computers by 8. By 12 I was running smallish networks, and I put myself through high school by working at various businesses as well as running decent-sized networks. By the time I finished post-secondary I had over a decade of experience in computers with at least a decade of that being actual network administration.
There are labour laws about how much work a minor can do (hours/week wise) and they can't be expected to miss school for it. The minor needs to have parental permission and they shouldn't be paid any less for doing that work than an equally qualified adult.
If those rules are obeyed, what's the problem?
"get with the new normal"
[Look at Android phone]
I think I have.
Give the man a cookie, he's on to something here!
That absolutely is a vision. Just not one customers are particularly enamored of.
Still rather iffy about the tiles on the start menu. I'd have to play with it to see how loathesome it is, or isn't. Now, if only they could do something about the other squillion little annoyances in the OS...
All those who "old fashioned" is a legitimate reason for removing functionality take one step forward.
[sound of machine guns being cocked]
Just because something is old fashioned doesn't mean it is no longer useful. Computers are tools. Fashion shouldn't matter one whit.
I don't suppose Microsoft have considered listening to the folks who buy their products and making software and services that those individuals and corporations actually want. Perhaps without a convoluted licensing system and prices that are affordable by all? A volume play, some might say. It worked for them in the past.
I just don't know that pissing away market share and attempting to capture the high-margin end of the market is going to work all that well. They face entrenched high-margin companies like Apple and Oracle on one side, and mad commoditsation by Amazon and Google on the other.
It strikes me then that the only real play is a populist one...so why is that the exact opposite of what they're attempting?
Your name is appropriate.
"FFS! The only difference between VMware and MS's offering is that SCVMM is a bucket of warm shit."
Mine's the one with an infrastructure that doesn't need my .ISO files to be in AD-connected "libraries" and has figured basic UI elements, like putting the ability to connect an .ISO file onto the console viewer. You know, usability stuff. For humans. Flesh-and-bone-and-not-PowerShell-scripts.
The clustered NFS server is adequate, assuming you're a big fan of old school JBOD-style systems. Mind you, if that's the route you prefer, then Solaris or Nexenta are just fine, too.
As for "clustering various services" beyond just NFS, I have to say that my experiences plainly differ. While such things are "possible" in Windows - and, let's be blunt, they're a hell of a lot more friendly under Server 2012+ than anything that went before - Red Hat Cluster Service still walks all over Windows. (If you say "n lines of PowerShell", I shall strike you. Back into your box, marketdroid.)
Frankly, we enter a world of "needs assessment" here. What are you trying to achieve with the cluster? Are you simply trying to achieve a 2-node RAIN? Because if that's all you're after Windows Clustering is one of the least friendly ways to share files on the planet. It certainly doesn't come cheap. The minimum buy in is right up there with enterprise players...and I don't have to reboot them as often.
Are you trying to achieve namespace coherance? I trust Datacore's SanSymphony V a fuck of a lot more than lashing together Windows systems that get really cranky if the other nodes aren't identical in performance. Datacore's stuff can take storage from any number of different vendors, tier the storage, provide N+X RAIN across storage from multiple vendors, do sync or async WAN replication (latency dependent) and present the whole kit and caboodle as a single unified storage space.
Are you trying to create centralized storage for virtual machines? I would trust damned near anything more than Storage Spaces right now, and the JBODtastic storage-from-the-stone-tablet days preferred by Windows for it's clustering. Now, admittedly, there are some great enterprise storage clusters that are engineered from the ground up to take advantage of this by basically creating a two-node system-in-a-can (Supermicro's is a great example), but I'd still prefer a Tintri cluster, or a VMAX.
And what about the future? We're heading into scale-out storage, and scale-out isn't quite what Windows does. Oh, you can try to use Windows like a poor man's Datacore, pointing all the storage at your Windows instance and lashing it together with Storage Spaces, but you don't get half the functionality...and fewer big builds have been through that scale-out minefield than I'd like.
The future of VM storage is server SANs, full stop. File and Object storage will either be served by visualized file servers running on top of that, or - far more likely - by proper decentralized object stores like Caringo, with an NFS or CIFS shim.
Now, Caringo...there's the way to store a gazillion piddly files. If you need CIFS and NFS then it can do that...but all your next-gen apps can be properly coded to object storage and we can kick RAID to the curb. Thank $deity. Unlike other Object stores, Caringo doesn't have a single-point-of-failure name node, because it stores the metadata with the object. This allows for quick failover, recovery of partial drives, and the ability to set various classes of objects at different RAIN rates within the cluster. It seems to eat new nodes with a minimum of fuss and muss and retires old ones in the same manner.
So when I look at Windows Server I see a company that's doing yesterday adequately. But I can't say as I'd design tomorrow's datacenters on that technology. If it's all you know, it will get you where you need to go...for a price. A substantial price, and one that's only going to go upwards. Think "those who are still using Mainframes."
For the future, my VM storage will be server SANs, and my file/object storage will be HA NASes (low end) and Caringo-like object stores for the midmarket and above.
TL;DR It isn't that Windows can't do the job. It's that there are alternatives out there which are as reliable or more, as cheap or more, and which scale better with greater ease of use and less management overhead. I can use Windows, but I just don't have the time, money or patience to dick around with it any more*.
*At the low end, Windows is just To Damned Expensive. At the midsize, I just keep running up against it's limitations. 10M files brings the server to it's knees and cuts IOPS in half because NTFS is shit? Fuck. ReFS gets me to 40M files per volume. Woo. I'm dealing with a billion files with organizations that have 50 users and that's not going down.
And what about server SANs? They changed the game in a big way and Microsoft is *crickets* on the subject. I can't keep scaling classical bottlenecked centralized storage when I'm dealing with high-IOPS demand compute nodes whose capacity seems to grow asymmetrically of cost decreases to centralized storage.
Storage is evolving at break-neck pace, and there are great offerings out there now which have had massive deployments for 5 and even 10 years. We're not talking about greenhorn startups; the real changes are now enterprise ready. If I hitch my horse to the Microsoft wagon, I'm going to get left behind by all these kids in their newfangled horseless carriages.
Cloud first, mobile first, customer last. Microsoft's made it's development priorities clear, and they simply aren't aligned with those of us who want to run our own infrastructure.
If you plan to move your stuff into Azure, buy Microsoft's on-prem stuff. If you don't, they buy your infrastructure from quite literally anyone else. It's as simple as that.
Just no. Some things are not okay.
"instant training for pilots, tank drivers, special forces and ship captains."
Pilots have already been replaced by autonomous machines. Tank drivers can be easily replaced by any of a dozen commercial driverless techs. What do you need with special forces when you have UCAVs and what do you need with ship captains when all the ships do is launch drones?
Robots fight. Humans in military are useful primarily for building and helping places recover from natural disasters. The military doesn't need soldiers anymore...it needs sappers.
It's sexy looking. Of course, to afford one you have to grind up a utopia's worth of unicorns and virgins then lay it all out in a line for your HP sales rep to snort.
Well, the tourist trap towns are pretty damned nice. There's rather a lot to like there, in fact. Have you never been to Cuba?
Wow. You're completely bugshit bonkers. Terrifying.
Customer last, staff last.
Except that we're all thought criminals. Also, your/you're. FFS.