Re: PEX is not about vendors
How very on message of you.
5190 posts • joined 31 May 2010
How very on message of you.
Fucking clownshoes, VMware.
@ Humpty McNumpty oh, no, I was totally trolling the dude. 100%. He'd been douching it up so hard by the time I got to the thread that I decided to poop on him. I never claimed to be holier than the others who dwell here. I'm just a little more self aware. Thus when I'm being a jackass it's usually on purpose.
He didn't just offer his opinion, he went after anyone who disagreed with him, and completely ignored the fact that there already exist alternatives that do what he wants. I see him as demanding Kickstarter change because he isn't satisfied with the existence of alternatives: he wants his view imposed on the market leader, because it's the market leader.
And because, apparently, he's channeling Carl Icahn.
Under that circumstance I feel zero remorse about trolling his ASCII. In fact, I rather enjoyed it. A++++++++ would troll again.
As for your concerns: Kickstarter has all sorts of rules and regulations to prevent "exploitative capitalism at it's worst." It is vicious about scams and cracks down on them hard. Frankly, that's why a lot of the other services sprung up: to get around Kickstarter's more restrictive rules and enforcement.
Is Kickstarter perfect? No. But I honestly don't think that government regulation will help here. I'm usually down with my socialist brethren, but in this case A) there's no evidence that the model is broken B) there's no evidence that Kickstarter isn't capable of self regulation and C) there's a hell of a lot of evidence that if any government tries to "regulate" this industry it will get a lot worse in a hell of a hurry.
You ask the following question: "why are we prepared to give other people money for them to turn into profit for themselves?"
The answer - quite simply - is "because if we don't then the thing we want to happen or be built won't happen or be built."
Kickstarter exists to fund projects and products that in all likelihood would never happen otherwise. It's naive to say that this is some sort of magic hand of the free market making a moral decision about who should or should not survive. Anti-competitive measures exist in the form of artificial barriers to entry raised though everything from regulation to vertical integration that prevents startups from being bootstrapped in any number of industries.
Let's try a small hypothetical scenario:
I really would like a glowing plant. In fact, I want a glowing plant quite a lot.
Now along comes a scientist that says he has the skill to make me a glowing plant, but not the startup capital to make it work. He needs a Big Pile Of Money if he is going to make glowing plants. Making just one is only slightly less expensive than making several thousand, so he decides that if he is going to do this, he's going to make a business out of it. Fair enough. I can respect that.
So he turns to Kickstarter. He says that if he meets his goal then he will be able to sell anyone a bag of glowing plant seeds for $50. He figures he needs $65,000 or this isn't getting off the ground. He offers various things to funders from a free plant to a vase made out of old lightbulbs to the grand prize of having their name spelled out in the DNA of the glowing plant for the person who ponies up $10,000.
If I fund the project to the tune of $40, I get a bag of glowing plant seeds when they're ready. That's $10 off from the sticker price I would pay if I never took part in the project at all. That sounds like a fair deal, so i could do that.
Instead, I choose to give him $500. Why? I really want that glowing plant. He needs to make it to $65,000 this is how much I can spare. Did I mention I want a glowing plant?
I am helping him fund his business and in return I will be getting something I desire: a glowing plant. There is no rational reason for me to expect to own a portion of his company. There was never an expectation that I would own a part of that company and I paid my money in full knowledge that all I was getting was a bag of glowing plant seeds.
That's all i wanted. I'd have paid more than $500 if I'd had it to pay.
I don't know if you've ever started a business. I have. It's expensive. Far more so than just the raw costs of materials. If you have a moral objection to people making a profit then I don't understand how you function in our society. Businesses make profit. It's how our whole society works.
I - one of the most socialist commenters on El Reg - don't have a problem with these folks making a profit. They make me a glowing plant, they get profit. Win, win.
The market will determine if the cost is fair. If the cost is not fair people won't pay it. Nothing on Kickstarter is a natural monopoly or a good you just can't live without. Thus nobody is forced to buy anything: they are paying only if they feel the price is fair.
Because of that I don't think regulation is rational or warranted. I also don't think it's warranted to think Kickstarter should change it's model or try to become "all funding things to all people" just because it has name recognition. That's like suggesting that Coca Cola should sell coffee because they have name recognition and you like coffee.
Of course, you know, there is a way to decide this. Go start an Indigogo to raise enough money to lobby Kickstarter to change it's business practices. Let the market decide if your idea is fair and worth the money.
You spent the top of this thread banging on about wanting an "incentive" to buy things and woe to all that paying money and receiving a physical object in exchange for that money was "inadequate" incentive. No, you want a percentage of the man's profits as well as the physical trinket!
Who the fuck do you think you are, Carl Icahn?
Then you jump straight to bullshit like "Comprehension not your strong point is it?" and get your panties in a bunch when someone calls you out for being a douchecanoe.
What you haven't grokked at all from this thread is that the people here see no reason to change Kickstarter to meet your whims. This is because you have provided to reason they consider valid. Your argument-fu was just not remotely strong enough.
This isn't because we don't think that the model you propose is a bad model, it is because it exists elsewhere and thus there is no reason to change Kickstarter. Kickstarter is what it is is and it has no logical reason to alter itself to be like another option just because you prefer the model of another option.
Let me try to put this into perspective. If a bunch of people are standing around a Smartcar saying "gee willickers, this really meets my exact needs, I think this is great" and you trip onto the scene and exclaim that it would be better with a big-block V8, a full bed for cargo and the ability to haul 3 tonnes then they are going to tell you "go buy a truck, ass clown" and go back to talking about their Smartcar.
Now most trolls, missio accomplished, would go off and terrorize kindergartners or some such. Nope, you hang around and say the Smartcar lovers "don't understand" and "they haven't given you a good reason that the Smartcar shouldn't have a big-block V8, a full cargo bed and the ability to haul 3 tonnes. You deride them as sheeple and say that they are preventing innovation by refusing to recognize how much better the Smartcar would be if it would only evolve to be exactly like you describe.
Thus begins the circular logic.
"Dude. Go to ford and buy a fucking truck. There's no rational reason for Smart to build a pickup. Lots of people build pickups. Smart makes Smartcars. A niche they creates and do well in."
"You don't understand! They could do so much better if they sold a Smartcar, but with a big-block V8, a full cargo bed and the ability to haul 3 tonnes!"
"Dude. Go to ford and buy a fucking truck. There's no rational reason for Smart to build a pickup. Lots of people build pickups. Smart makes Smartcars. A niche they creates and do well in."
"You don't understand! They could do so much better if they sold a Smartcar, but with a big-block V8, a full cargo bed and the ability to haul 3 tonnes!"...
Ad infinitum. So while I do so enjoy being stuck in the Typhon Expanse getting blown up every time the Bozeman saunters through the portal, I'm glad you've chose to decompress the shuttle bay as there are many other places to be.
You haven't asked questions. You shat an "opinion" - that appears to me to be far more of a demand than anything else - followed by a stream of vitriol at anyone who told you your opinion was unwarranted, undesired and unhelpful.
So yeah, you know what, the best I got for is "dude, your opinion has been roundly rejected and based on how you've handled that you're coming across as the sort of fellow I wouldn't want to have beers with."
You have a lot of "I want" with bloody little "and here's why you should too." You're all stick and no carrot. I don't see a reason why I shouldn't call you on that. Writer, not writer...if you're wrong on the internet then expect the rest of the internet to appear out of a portal and beat you to death with a rubber chicken. It's kind of the way the internet is.
Kickstarter is one thing.
You are "of the opinion" that it should be another.
People say "no, it shouldn't"
You say "should too!"
I say "hey, there's this other thing over here that's exactly what you are talking about, but it's not Kickstarter."
You respond with "my opinion is valid, damn you!"
Yep. This conversation sure was just dripping with class until I arrived. Kickstarter is what is is and people like it that way. There are alternatives, ranging from Indiegogo to the TSX Venture. There's no rational reason that in the face of that diversity it would change or even should change. You seem averse to looking for alternatives. You're just being a hater.
So, if you're being a hater, why should I spare you the rod? You lot wouldn't give me a half a breath before you started in with the knives, it seems to me that turnabout is fair play.
Just...let it go. Even if you believe ardently and eternally that you're in the right on this, nobody else does. You're preaching to an audience you can't convert and you're just making yourself look the fool in doing so.
So yeah. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one. And in this context, yours just happens to be the one that's smelling up the joint. Sorry man, but that's the way it is.
Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one. But christ man, what the hell have you been eating? *hurrrk*
Chris W you are demanding that kickstarter be something that it explicitly is not, was never intended to be, nor has any rational reason to be whilst ignoring that the thing you desire already exists elsewhere. Basically you are whining on the internet because a popular service chose a model you don't like and (shock, horror) millions of people around the world were down with that.
When called on it by multiple people you basically went full douchecanoe all over these forums. After all that you want me to treat you like you're some sort of knowledge-bearing savant?
The fuck, what?
@Chris W: Kickstarter is a place to place advance orders to buy good or services from companies that don't have the startup capital to launch without a confirmed userbase.
What you seem to want is a way to invest in a company and obtain a percentage of ownership. That's called a stock market. There even exist "venture" stock markets specifically for what you are talking about.. For example, The TSX Venture Exchange.
Kickstarter is a means for entrepreneurs to minimise the risk of starting a venture by distributing that risk amongst interested potential customers, each of whom put in a small amount and eventually receive a product or service in return. It is nothing like a venture exchange, nor was it intended to be. It is a separate service.
If you want a venture exchange, go purchase shares from companies listed on a venture exchange.
Some do. I argue that most don't. A lot of people suffer from Dunning Kruger and so think they know way more than they do. Or at the very least, they believe they know "enough" to make the call. Still more people simply go with "what they like" without ever asking for advice or help.
Those people asking for help or advice are in the minority. Most people think they know enough to go buy a computer, because they're on their second, third, fourth or moreth computer by now. Computers are a commodity. You don't need to talk to a nerd to get one. You just browse Futureshop's selection and pick one you like.
Amazingly, if what people want isn't on the shelf to be bought, they won't buy something that they don't want except under duress. They aren't buying Windows 8. That has little - if anything - to do with advice (or lack thereof) from nerds. It has everything to do with personal preference on behalf of the consumers.
"Good" or "bad" are entirely relative here. You might consider Windows 8 "good" because you wrongly conflate "new" with "better." I might consider Windows 8 bad because it not only is a piss poor UX, but to spend a bent copper on it would be to validate Microsoft's position that we are all consumers to have our preferences dictated to us instead of customers whose preferences should drive design.
"Good versus bad" mean nothing. The opinions of nerds mean nothing. The press coverage in tech magazines means nothing. People are making up their own minds without having to go to a nerd. They are trying out Windows 8 in stores and deciding "no".
That "no" decision usually occurs before they would go to a nerd. Nerds are used to help someone make the optimal choice, once they've decided that a purchase is to be made. They aren't making it that far. They are driving by the local "auto dealership row" and seeing that every car and truck on every lot has a Justin Beiber paint job and saying "fuck this."
They are so turned off by that paint job that they don't even call a knowledgeable friend and ask them "what's the best option." They don't bother taking it for a test drive. They see a deal breaker and decide to live with what they have.
My point in all of this is that Windows 8 is a fucking deal breaker. People would, will and do buy new, faster PCs when the option of Windows 7 is made available. That option isn't even visible to most people.
They simply don't have a conceptualization that you can buy a computer with "not Windows 8" any more. They don't go to a nerd and ask "can I have Windows 7" because they don't even know this is a question they can ask.
Let them know, however, that this is something they can still do...and you sell some PCs. Pure and simple. The difficulty is only in getting the word out that Windows 7 is still a thing you can buy.
PCs are a mature market. They are only going to be replaced as old ones fail or when new ones are so significantly faster than old ones as to make an upgrade worth it. (SSDs being the driver right now.) But the dominance of Windows 8 on retail PCs - and thus in the public mindshare of "what you can buy" - is artificially supressing demand below even that "replacement only" level.
People are willing to forgo replacements on systems they would otherwise be entirely willing to replace because they don't want Windows 8. That makes Windows 8 a great big fucking mistake. It makes the inability to admit that there was a massive problem with Windows 8 - and with Microsoft's customer-hostile attitude surrounding it - an even bigger problem.
Those who deny the present never learn from the past and are thusly condemned to repeat it.
My dealer says to do a paint job required removing components and thus they won't support warranty. Their word is the one that matters, not yours. I also checked the warranty on several of the notebooks I've recently purchased: same deal. Remove the OS and warranty is null and void. Again, their word is what matters, not yours.
Your repeated assertion that people want Windows 8 is equally irrelevant. It isn't reflected in the market. Windows 7 is selling far better than Windows 8. In fact, it's where virtually all growth is coming from. Evidence from retails has been mounting as well. Evidence from online statistics has been perfect clear too.
But you know what? I don't fucking care. I am not the one who suffers because you - and those at Microsoft - are in denial about this. Microsoft shareholders, employees and fanboys are. I'm done with Microsoft. So you believe whatever you want to believe. It doesn't change reality.
In reality, when I offer someone with the opportunity to upgrade to a Windows 7 computer with a shiny new SSD, faster CPU and so forth, they buy it. When I offer them the opportunity to downgrade to a shiny new Windows 8 computer, they pass. That tells me what I need to know to sell computers to my customers. That makes me money.
You can go on your merry way being poor and selling fuck all. It's no skin off my nose one way or another.
Wipers and tires are considered "user replaceable parts". A proper paint job on the car requires disassembly of components that are only supposed to be disassembled by the dealer during warranty period. Thus it would invalidate the warranty on everything but the powertrain, as the disassembly was not done by the dealer. (Warranty is only honoured if all such maintenance is performed only be the dealer during the warranty period.)
That's not exactly earth-shattering in conceptualization. It occurs on cars, printers, computers, even home appliances. Your manual will explicitly state what is a user-serviceable component. Any disassembly of the unit for any reason invalidates warranty. User-serviceable components never require disassembly.
Which brings me back to Windows 8: people don't know how to get rid of it. It's bloody hard to find a PC that doesn't run it for sale in the shops. Even if people did get the upgrade to Windows 7 done, they'd probably not get their warranty honoured.
If what is for sale is not what people want to buy they don't buy it unless they are under significant duress or pressure to do so. What the hell is so hard to understand about this?
People will buy a newer computer even if they don't need one if that computer is significantly faster than their old one and does exactly what they want (i.e. is exactly like their old one, but faster and without the viruses.)
Microsoft released a smelly turd onto the market and tried to force everyone to buy it.
People said "I'd rather use my beater than buy your goddamned Edsel."
This is not rocket science. It may hurt the feelers of the nerderati that the hoi polloi have the choice of doing this - that they the pendulum of power is no longer on the side of being able to force upgrades by fiat - but too fucking bad.
Put PCs on the market with Windows 7 and SSDs and they will sell. How do I know this? Because this is exactly how Lenovo ended up kicking HPs ass and stealing top spot. The market. Analyse it.
If I repaint my car before the warranty is up, then with most dealers I've ever encountered they wouldn't service it. To paint the thing would mean taking it apart, which means a non-dealer mechanic would have had at it.
If I take the vehicle to a mechanic that isn't a dealer, they won't honour the warranty. All service to be done by the dealer until end of warranty, and the dealer will only ever bring the car to stock. if the stock is a Beiber paint job, then it must be a beiber paint job until the warranty is up.
Thus a Beiber paint job would be a hell of a dealbreaker. I'd rather drive my 10 year old car than anything with a Beiber paint job.
Besides, how am I supposed to paint a car? I have no idea how that's done. I know it isn't like painting a wall. Who can do it properly? Isn't that expensive?
Fuck it, I'll just drive what I have.
Windows 7 may be simple for you to buy. You're plugged in, a techie, a nerd. The average punter isn't. What's selling in Best Buy doesn't rock the Windows 7, it has Windows 8.
You are correct in that people want what they know, but that very fact prevents them from downloading Linux, switching to Apple or doing "technical voodoo" to upgrade a computer to Windows 7.
I've sold more computers in the past 6 months than I have in the past three years. Why? People found out "I could get Windows 7." There's a strong desire for it. People want newer, faster PCs than what they have...but they wont those PCs to be exactly like what they already have, just faster...and they want it cheap.
A new system with an SSD meets their needs. $500-$750 at the top end is what they're willing to pay, and they'll keep it for 6-10 years. People are refreshing. PCs still get too old and too slow.
...but that refresh cycle is lengthening, and people would rather put up with a slow, creaky computer than use Windows 8.
Is all of the PC market decline Microsoft's fault? No. But a good chunk of it is. Those who - like you - refuse to admit that Microsoft was a big part of the problem will only depress the market further. You can't solve the problem until you admit it exists, and continuing to ignore the customer base while shoveling shit that people ardently don't want to buy is not going to reignite sales.
"They don't really need $utility". The hits keep coming. Keep posting. You just keep reinforcing my point whit every post.
Congratulations! You are among the privileged few...and proving my point. The attitude of "I have what I want, so fuck everyone else" is exactly what I decry. Mainly because those who have what they want are generally few, but they hold the reigns of power, thus allowing for the creation of vastly imbalanced societies.
...but then, that's just tickety boo with you, it seems. Sad.
"The US has fiber to the home as well, the damn imperialist dogs!"
"You might as well say that those damn socialist countries have indoor plumbing, so take that US and UK!"
You are exactly correct, sir. The comparison is apt. In those damned socialist countries fibre-to-the-home is viewed to be just as essential as indoor plumbing and so it's provisioning is treated as such. The percentage of the population it reaches is damned near total.
Amusingly enough, I do agree that fibre-to-the-home reflects the view of the USA regarding indoor plumbing. If indoor plumbing weren't already built in to extant homes, I have zero doubt whatsoever that those currently holding the reigns of power would do sweet fuck all to help bring it to those without, instead they would say that those who weren't paying for it to be added out of thier own pockets were "lazy", "lacked ambition" and "needed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps."
So you are exactly right. I might as well just say "those damned socialist countries have indoor plumbing", because the difference in how both types of nations treat their citizens can best be viewed through exactly that lens.
"I completely agree, but that's not how the real world operates, now is it?"
Sure it is. It just isn't how the US or the UK operate. There are plenty of countries that do not suckle at the teat of trickle-down economics and free-market extremism. Then again, most of htose countries now have things like "fiber to the home". The damned socialists.
If the ISP refuses to peer and instead wants to double dip by charging the content provider for transit as well as the subscriber for receiving said packets then what is the content provider supposed to do? Eat the cost of paying that ISP? Make the subscribers from non-douchetastic ISPs subsidize those who subscribe to the greedy one?
Indeed, can that ISP who isn't directly peering even handle high-quality streams, if everything is going through a smaller pipe? Seems to me that lowering the quality is the only way the content provider has in that situation to ensure that their customers get a stream at all.
Perhaps the better route would have been to charge an extra fee to the content consumers to deal with the transit charges imposed by their ISP?
Let's be clear here: infrastructure owners should not be content providers. Infrastructure owners should be "dumb pipes" providing the best possible quality of internet access with zero discrimination for the best possible price. Under no circumstances should an ISP be allowed to play any sort of shenanigans with content providers, but doubly so if they are content providers providing a service that competes with one provided by the infrastructure owner.
Most people have a very limited choice of ISP - if any choice at all - and as such corporations which are providing access to a utility which is vital to participation in today's society should not under any circumstances be in a position to be accused of "conflict of interest." It should never even come up. If they are going to own infrastructure and content then it needs to be regulated such that conflict of interest is not possible. Otherwise, ban infrastructure providers from providing content services of their own.
Utilities must be nothing more than "dumb pipes". By they providing you electricity, natural gas or telecommunications.
What was bad about Silverlight? Silverlight was amazing. It's a goddamned shame it never caught on.
@AC Oh, I do very much care to enlarge upon that. When I do, it will be in the form of a nice multi-page feature. Gathering banners takes time, but the long story short is that they violate your privacy in pretty much the exact same ways as Google, with only a very few exceptions...and they have completely new ways of invading your privacy that Google doesn't even use yet.
They aren't like for like on every single privacy invasion, but wingus is just as guilty as dingus on this.
Which other online source are you going to where privacy is respected? Microsoft? Fat chance: they're as bad - if not worse - than the chocolate factory. Yahoo is just outright incompetent. For virtually all of Google's tools the competition is either just as privacy invasive, incompetent or - far more often - both.
Additionally, you can defang 99.9% of Google's privacy creepyness with Google Dashboard. Is Google creepy and evil? Yes. Are the alternatives less crap? Nope.
The possible exemption *might* be Duckduckgo, but I am willing to bet MS has put a bunch of money into figuring out how to de-anonymise searches sent their way through that thing.
Actually, 2 iPhones each would drive data usage quite a bit. What uses the data? Updates. I've done the legwork on this, and app updates + OS updates account for something like 40% of data consumed. Increasing dramatically is browser usage, as people pull down higher and higher res images while browsing. Oddly enough, streaming isn't that big, as most people seem to only do that while at home/work where there is Wifi.
The updates eat the data plan, I suspect, because they trigger on a time basis, not a "what am I connected to" basis. So if the update trigger goes while you're on the bus, then the apps auto-update. Also, there's a bizarre thing in my studies where people pulling OTA OS updates seem to do it first thing in the morning while waiting for the bus. They get bored, accept the update then fidget ceaselessly whilst waiting for the bus to arrive.
Of course, my sample size is something like 50 units across 40 people, so consume the above with heaps of NaCl.
When Scott says it, the Voice Of Authority Speaketh. When I say it, "oh that's just paranoia." Remember kids: it isn't Truth until it's spoken by a highly placed corporate employee in a venue that marketing and PR can't vehemently deny.
Bucky Balls do. :)
Bing sucks. Fix it or fuck off, Microsoft.
You cut off your digital dong to spite an algorithm? Wha?
You fail during your rant to mention which alternatives you feel are more morally or ethically "proper" when compared to our advertising chocolate factory overlords. Google are haughty, arrogant fucksticks, it's true...but the alternatives are worse.
At least Google mostly builds products and services I want, for a price I can afford and even periodically listens to me, the customer. (If you pay for Google Apps, you are the customer. Otherwise, you're the product.) Google stalk me, but they also try to keep me happy while they do it.
Microsoft tells me what I'm going to pay them, puts a loaded gun against my head and says "nice business you have there, shame if something happened to it. Now about our ransom...." all the while never giving a bent fuck about my desires or requirements as a customer. With added doses of Metro, Ribbon bar, SPLA restrictions, 15% user-over-dev price hikes and VDI licensing to make you scream.
Microsoft also stalk me, scan my e-mail and otherwise are creepy douchecanoes, but they don't even have the decency to use lube, let alone try to keep me happy while they're working me over.
Then we look at Yahoo's antiquated bucket of customer-hostile fail or Oracle's wallet-seeking doom missiles and things start to get progressively darker from there.
So Google sucks. I'm with you on that. But they suck the least out of the available candidates. It's like politics: you don't vote for who you like, you vote for the halfwit you think will do the least amount of harm. When it comes to my privacy, my pocketbook and the foundational principles of the open internet, at the moment that happens to be Google.
Hey douchepopsicle, one of the commenters very explicitly stated "In relation to the internet, we are consumers. In relation to our ISPs, we are customers." Thus, as someone who does things in relation to the internet, the conversation is indeed about me.
The argument that we are "consumers" of the internet is bullshit. Maybe if your forehead slopes just that little too much that's all you ever do on the net...but a significant chunk of wired humanity create content, not simply consume it. That's one of the beauties - and the horrors - of the open internet: everyone has a voice.
Don't presume I'm trolling just because you are too thick to connect the dots without me getting out the big crayon and doing it for you. I expect that the consumers of content in El Reg's comments section shouldn't have to have such things spelled out for them. I am appalled and shamed to be wrong.
Why would you be under the illusion that I might require or desire that you be impressed?
Perhaps he meant "the election of president Clinton?"
Really? Sure of that are you? Seems to me I'm a content creator, not merely a consumer. So, um, GTFO my internet.
Shut up and pay, peasant!
I explicitly asked him about the Dell layoffs. Dell have many good developers, sales staff and marketing folk. The cream of that crop could find a home at Spiceworks.
The core app will remain free, but they are opening the platform up for developers. Consider as one example Teamveiwer. Teamviewer makes great remote administration software. They could then sell their application through Spiceworks as a plugin, integrate with the platform so that as you are navigating through your inventory or responding to a ticket about a given PC you just click the button and Teamviewer will connect.
This would allow you to connect without having to exchange TVID/password combos, going into the Teamviewer manager or carefully curating a list of PCs through the "computers and contacts" section. Teamviewer could even build the app such that when Spiceworks detects a new system on the network it automatically installs Teamviewer on the new system and adds the TVID/password combination to the Spiceworks system. I'd pay for that.
Others are doing things like integrating their mobile device management software into Spiceworks. You get a set of features for free as part of the base Spiceworks app, but you pay the vendor to unlock the really sexy stuff if you want to go farther.
Spiceworks will always be free. But now there is a path to integration for vendors looking to build on the platform and offer non-free management tools to systems administrators.
We don't believe you, CSEC...or you either, CSIS! We'll see your ass in court to have this out once and for all, without the weasel words, misdirections or deception. None of this pussyfooting around in parliament. To the judge with you!
It has a Spicerex. We should totally name him Igor.
Good catch! I hadn't had a chance to chase Elan on that one yet. Come to think of it, this calls for a review. TO THE LAB!
Josh (@prodigSC) supposedly found out some magical way to hook up Plex (@PlexApp) to it. I wonder if that got nuked by the Chocolate Factory's rampant douchebaggery?
What upsets me is the "you don't have the right to stream content you own and which resides on yoru own network."
To hell with this "pay us all your after-tax money per month as a service" rent-seeking bullshit.
Run your workload on our cloud selector: it makes your workload cloud agnostic!
Run your workload on our cloud, it makes your workload hypervisor agnostic!
Run your workload on our hardware, it makes your workload hardware agnostic!
"I usually find those of your age who've such perception and passion have returned from Afghanistan etc. and/or have had mates killed there."
I did have mates killed there. I grew up within pissing distance of a military base, and have spent my entire life connected to the people who work there in one way or another. I was never physically fit enough to serve - or honestly, I probably would have - and I am rather sick of losing friends to the Americans' godawful war.
Not that being a civvy means I have the faintest clue in hell what serving on the line is like, just that those who fall there leave behind friends and loved ones here.
A) Apple barely talks to The Register. The chances that it was paid for are the square root of negative yo momma.
B) I found the article informative and interesting and connected to a bit of IT history that I found amusing.
So STFU and GTFO. Not every article has to be something you personally care about. Can we please have just one article on the internets about technology without the comments section devolving into brand tribalism? If you don't like Apple, don't read articles with Apple in the headline!
I like it. It's well done. Good job, Apple marketing guys.
Yeah, because management techniques like stack ranking et al have done ****ing wonders for tech companies. Morale matters. Culling is non-optimal: look to mentoring, leadership and training instead.
Good luck to all my friends at Dell. I hope the finger of death points not at you.
I remember "IBM" stores in my local mall when I was a teen...
"Stealing ideas is perfectly legal.
Stealing registered design dress, patents, trademarks is not."
Unless you're Apple. Then you can steal registered design, dress, patents AND trademarks and get away with it. By presidential decree, even. Sorry, buddy, but Apple are fucking clownshoes, just like Samsung.
"Maybe Samsung copies them, but Apple do not make the best products. That's like saying that The Register has the best words - absolutely meaningless."
That'll be you eating your hat, then.
Where's my goddamned Johnny Cab?
None of which has anything to do with the courts, their officers, or the RCMP. And if you think for a second the RCMP would hesitate to lock away any of those bastards, you're an idiot. The Tories threw the RCMP under the bus in the name of public opinion by launching investigations into RCMP corruption and misbehaviour. The RCMP would love nothing more than the return the favour.