Re: Just for chortles ...
You sure it's not you fault 'cause you hid the stick up your ass?
6734 posts • joined 31 May 2010
You sure it's not you fault 'cause you hid the stick up your ass?
" Had this been a typical commercial effort, with everything patented, there would have been multiple incompatible and very expensive webs."
For a long time, there were.
I think that is also likely part of it, yes. Impact detected = stop. So if you have person adhered to hood, you have prevented actually running them over, which means a life saved, at least potentially.
Seems like a decent idea to me. Maybe the reason Google are the first to patent it is because makers of autonomous vehicles, rather than "drivers" are likely to be liable for injuries. Suddenly there is an incentive to develop vehicles which do less damage to those they hit.
VMware doesn't care about the people using its products. VMware cares about the people buying its products. They are not the same people.
One group does as their told. The other make purchases after some hookers and blow. Anyone too small for hookers and blow isn't someone the sales team - or the company - cares about.
Top to bottom, VMware employees only care about the enterprise, and when you sell to the enterprise you don't have to care about the people who actually use your software.
"Tell you what though - the HTML5 client is damn fast!"
Clearly, we have very different definitions of fast.
See, the problem is that the flash client works fine in small environments. It also works reasonably well if the server is some ridiculously overpowered Windows server running your vSphere server. If you have enough horsepower behind it, and you using only a handful of servers, it's not that bad. Even the first flash client.
But this all changes if you either A) use the virtual appliance or B) use more than about 8 servers. (Which, I hadn't had much of a chance to do when I wrote that.) When you place any sort of load on the vSphere server (or restrict its capabilities by putting it into a virtual appliance) it disintegrates.
VMware made it slightly less shit generation on generation, but there was something fundamentally broken about the flash client that meant the thing didn't scale worth a damn, and so nobody ended up using it.
So here we are with the HTML 5 client. 75% of the complaints I have about the flash client UI design go away either by A) making it look more like the C$ client, which was done in 6.0 or B) getting rid of Flash, which the HTML5 client does.
The remaining 25% is speed and responsiveness. The HTML 5 client still grinds to a fucking halt if you load the vSphere server up. The new 6.0 vSphere server already demands significantly more resources than the 5.x one. If they can't get the speed problem dealt with, I'm not looking forward to the "production ready" configuration that is going to be required to run the HTML5 based one.
And appliance is all you get now! So you can't solve this by throwing some dedicated overspecced windows box (or boxes, as you probably want a cluster of them) to run your vSphere server.
The idea behind the web client is great. Even the initial implementation at small scale was okay. Let's face it, the ability for the web client to queue commands so that you could keep working, instead of the "white screen of death" you get from the C$ client while it thinks is pretty handy.
But they just never ran the ball into the end zone. Now, they're telling us they're taking away the C# client altogether and sticking us with an unproven GUI with unknown bugs and unknown scaling and performance characteristics. Not cool.
I want the HTML 5 client to work. I want it to be what the Flex client promised to be. I want it to work with 128 nodes as good as with 8. I want it to be responsive and fluid and not make me feel an itch for the C# client.
One thing I have learned since way long back when VMware showed me that flex client for the first time: test everything in my own lab. Push the envelope. Never - ever - trust a vendor demo or a vendor lab environment. Push the tech to breaking. Do what the vendor says is unsupported.
So we'll see what this new one is like. Not with two nodes. Not in a VMware lab. But on the rack with dozens of nodes and everything I can throw at it. Maybe.
VMware has gotten quite touchy about people actually testing their product. So we'll see what we see.
"Exchange flipping to EMC made me give up on using the GUI altogether"
This has always been Microsoft's goal. Making GUIs costs money, and Microsoft doesn't want to invest in this. It's much cheaper to simply tell the entire world that they will do everything through CLI and scripting and that they will like it.
What are they going to do, use a different vendor? Puh-lease.
You only need to care about ease of use when you're not the top dog. Now, over to VMware...
"VMware have now insisted that we use this shitty HTML5 abomination"
To be fair, it is the flex client that was the abomination. The HTML 5 client actually has promise. If it is done on time. And if VMware listens to the concerns of systems administrators who aren't vapid sycophants.
The HTML 5 client is close enough that if significant engineer effort is put into finishing it, and solid QA is solicited from outside the "yes, sir" echo chamber it legitimately could be better than all clients which have gone before.
But will it be done on time? What is the matrix of which clients will connect to which versions of the software and manage what? How much of a complete nightmare is managing a multi-hypervisor environment going to be?
VMware is staying pretty mum on the details.
The host client is acceptable, but the C# client still kicks its ass in a lot of ways.
As for the HTML5 vSphere client, that has a lot of growing up to do. If they can get it ready for even 6 months after VMworld, I'll be shocked. Even then, it's still not as fast or as responsive as the C# client. Right click and waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Now, the HTML 5 client isn't as bad as that fucking miserable, piece-of-shit, eldritch horror flash fuckery, but then again, getting repeatedly tased in the balls is preferable to having to use manage more than a handful of systems with that thing. (And no, the 6.x release of the flashy fuckerdoodle didn't really make the boo boos all better.)
The HTML 5 client has promise. In principle, I far prefer it to a C# client. But there is a hell of a lot of work to do yet, and I am not remotely convinced it will ever actually be done.
After years of VMware shoving the flash client down our throats and telling us A) all our complaints are invalid and B) everyone likes it, really, it's just you that doesn't...VMware has lost all credibility regarding UI claims. The only company with a worse reputation in this regard is Microsoft.
So we'll see what's delivered. I, for one, have zero faith this will work out well for the actual practitioners.
"By choice we mean MSI"
Eurocom uber alles.
Because 2 bits per cell at 64,000 cells is 128kbit. Kilobit. We're not talking 128GiB DIMMs here. We're not talking 4TiB PCM drives.
What we're talking about is a potentially useful high endurance write buffer for flash chips. Think about writing log files. Lots of tiny little changes that are definitely "sub-cell" in size, when we lok at writing all of that to a flash device. Logs can wear out flash in a hurry.
But what if you front-ended that flash with this PCM? Absorb the writes until there is enough change to require a full cell's worth of writes, thus optimizing the flash?
Physically, flash will occupy less space for some time yet. And never believe IBM regarding price. They aren't talking about PCM as being the same cost as bulk 3D NAND, but competitive with the most expensive SLC flash you can find, I promise you.
So the initial applications will be PCM as a flash cache layer until some refinements are made to packaging, temperature reliability and so forth. Basically, taking the SLC cache out of today's flash drives and putting PCM in instead.
"Eat shit, Muricans!!!""
Most of them kinda do already. :/
" your stated belief is that all 100k+ employees of Microsoft are untrustworthy"
I never said that. I do believe that most Redmondians in key positions are untrustworthy. Those with the influence to have their voices heard and their decisions count. But, in my experience, most of the drone-level worker bees at the bottom of the pyramid are decent folk, many of whom even agree that their employer are untrustworthy. They're just doing their job and getting paid, however. Worrying about why their employer does what they do is beyond their pay pay grade. Please draw some distinction between a project manager and the poor bastard manning the support lines.
It also appears from your statements that you have already pre-judged me
Actually, your word usage and the precise ways you sidestep various issues that would weaken your position to focus on those things you think allow you to degrade the credibility of your opponent as an individual - and thus make the uncomfortable arguments they bring up seem as though they are unfounded - are incredibly reminiscent of a True Believer Microsoft salesbloke that inhabits these parts and I honestly suspect that you're him.
He absolutely isn't capable of an objective discussion about Microsoft, any more than someone busy burning witches or blowing up heathens is capable of having an objective discussion about interfaith morality and the validity of atheism. As a side note, he's actually pretty representative of the mid-to-upper tier Redmondian employees I've had the opportunity to interact with.
"I cannot have a balanced and fair conversation due to who pays my salary"
No, I don't think you can have a balanced and fair conversation based on what you've said and how. Look, I talk to people all the time about the good and bad of their employers. From support phone staff to product managers, VPs to CEOs. That's my actual job...and you'd be surprised how many of them are perfectly open to calm, rational discussion about what their employers (or, in the case of the CEOs, what their minions) do right and what they do wrong.
You, on the other hand, and pretty clearly coming at this from a completely different standpoint. I am prepared to have dispassionate, objective discussion with anyone who demonstrates the self-awareness that all organizations and individuals make mistakes, that we all have blinders, biases, prejudices, differing needs and both rational and irrational expectations. I don't see that from you.
What I see is a True Believer whose goal is to either convince others of the Unquestionable Truth of their employer's Perfect Vision, or, failing that, to humiliate the heathen critics, thus bringing everything they say into doubt. I emphatically do not see you as open minded. I see you as evangelical. And to be perfectly, 100% clear: I loathe evangelicals, of any faith.
"This leads me to conclude that you are intolerant of those views that may differ to yours"
I am perfectly tolerant of views that differ to mine. Understand that I love arguing. If the world agreed with me then I'd have nothing to do!
What I can't stand are people who seek to convert me. Who make conversion a moral quest. I can't stand people who relentlessly pursue my agreement when it is quite clear that I will never agree with them; usually because we have a philosophical difference at a very core level that informs all aspects of our belief systems.
Stepping away from technology, for example, let's approach this from another side. I am strongly left libertarian. I oppose the authoritarian right with every fiber of my being. Despite this, I can and do have friends who are strong believers in the authoritarian right.
We have glorious - oftentimes passionate, loud and emphatic - arguments everything in existence. They argue selfishness and the importance of the stick as the fundamental aspects of human. I argue compassion and the importance of the carrot. But at the end of the day, we happily disagree and go have a beer. It's a careful balance, hard to maintain, but one I enjoy.
The key is that - despite the arguing - we're not trying to convert one another. We are presenting evidence. We are advancing hypotheses and proposing experiments to prove our views, or debating how this new evidence might cause us to change our hypotheses. We don't expect to win. We expect to follow the evidence, even if we start from different assumptions.
To me, that's the highest form of human interaction. And conversion is the lowest.
I'll answer your question in the form of a separate sysadmin blog post, as it is worth it's own discussion.
I didn't know about Germany and China. Good on Microsoft for that. One good deed shines out amongst all their misdeeds! A start, then. One very small step towards redemption.
As for other tech companies that have sued US.gov, there's Twitter: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/08/twitter_sues_us_government_for_right_to_disclose_nothing/
And that's just for starters. Though I do question "sued some part of the government but not the actual government". There isn't a distinction. You sue whichever arm of the government happens to be restraining you from doing what you wish. "The government" isn't a single entity in the US. It was designed that way on purpose.
It is not shocking that other tech companies have backed Microsoft in their PR stunt, just as Microsoft has backed the PR stunts of other companies. Given that Microsoft have themselves removed the ability of end users to control what data Microsoft hoovers up (from our online accounts, services and even our desktops and servers!) and then gives over to law enforcement I flat out do not believe that suing the US government is an act of altruism, morality or ethics.
Microsoft has proven time and again they don't give a rat fuck about our privacy or our data sovereignty. They just need us proles to believe that they do, so we'll keep buying their stuff.
If Microsoft want to start building trust they will immediately A) apologize for their misdeeds. B) Return complete control of our operating systems and applications to us. No ransomware edition special price versions only for elites. Total control to all who want it. C) Commit to offering choice in future major UI changes, API changes and so forth so that we can vote with our wallets for the product we actually want.
That will be a start. Three suggestions amongst hundreds. And it will take a track record of many years of adhering to customer-first, privacy-first principles before trust can truly start being rebuilt.
Unfortunately, Microsoft don't care. And as you have so ably demonstrated, neither do its staff. Blame the victim is in full force. It's "all in their mind", etc. And you wonder "the hatred" comes from.
Re: administrator first, architect later...that's a problem for future generations. These things are cyclical, and right now we're in a "cut back on the proles" phase. It looks set to last at least a decade, probably two.
as for "keeping it all in their heads"...that can be bypassed. Toodle about the site and read about "shadow IT". It's been written about before.
Just because the company I would like to back is unlikely to exist, does that mean I should cease trying to hold vendors accountable for their actions? Great vendors do exist. I work with several, and friends with several others. They aren't Microsoft, but they aren't nonexistent either.
I support those vendors whom I can trust and I deride those I cannot. Nobody will ever convince me that this makes me immoral, unethical or even biased.
Trust is critical to vendor selection and to business in general. Especially when we start talking "cloud". Unfortunately, I don't believe Microsoft's employees are likely to ever understand or agree.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair
So Trevor, dear chap, where does your hatred for Microsoft originate from?
Betrayal. You could start here for some background, but the long story short is really just that Microsoft turned its back on those of us who were its biggest fans. It made sweeping changes without offering us choice, didn't listen when we spoke up and eventually even removed from us the option to control our own computers.
Once, I was one of Microsoft's most voiceferous evangelists. But betrayal is a powerful emotion, and one that lingers.
I'm pretty sure that every article you write takes a shot at them?
Probably less than 10% of my articles contain a shot at Microsoft. That puts them a little bit above Netapp or Nutanix and probably below VMware.
Why them specifically?
How have they wronged you more than other large IT firms such as Google
Google has been naieve, but to my knowledge has not outright wronged me. My biggest issue with them is that they believed they could walk the middle line with phone vendors and telcos by giving them control over the update process for Android. The result was an unmitigated disaster.
How else has Google wronged me? They advertise at me? Scary. They hoover up all my info? Sure, but so does everyone else. Google are at least up front about it, and give me the ability to kill their creepy spyware off. They aren't perfect - I can bitch about them all day - but I don't feel they are intentionally malicious or apathetic towards the end user.
I have spent time at both Google and Microsoft, and much time with many folks who work at both places. Googlers are oddly naive as a whole; they legitimately believe in different things than the rest of us and think they're doing the right thing. Not so Microsoft. Microsoft employees have always evidenced an unsubtle hostility towards their own customers coupled with a sense of superiority that says any customer or user that doesn't agree with them is obviously in the wrong.
There are, of course, exceptions...but the average attitudes of the individuals I have encountered working for the two companies seem to line up quite well with the actions of the body corporate. As such, I feel less hostility towards Google's bumbling naiveté than I do towards Microsoft's arrogant apathy. Though, admittedly, I am no less wary of the Chocolate Factory than the Beast of Redmond. I just watch for different issues stemming from different actions and motivations.
Oracle are evil. Oracle have always been evil. Oracle never tried to be anything but evil. Can you really a villain who not only knows they are a villain but is honest about it as well? Or do you merely accept that this is what they are, and treat all interactions with them accordingly?
Basically an incompetent Oracle.
From a culture standpoint, they share a lot with Microsoft. They are, however, far - far - worse to their staff and partners, and slightly better to their customers. I'm not a fan, but I do appreciate the role they are playing in driving change. Highly - highly - wary of them.
Arrogant, high handed, self-righteous asshats that don't listen to their customer base and do whatever they want. They do, however, have the virtue of actually being right more often than not, something that other companies which attempt a similar amount of hubris fail to accomplish.
You also may want to research how Microsoft is taking the US Gov. to court to protect individuals and organisations data privacy, who else is doing that?
Apple, for one. Google has as well. IIRC, Twitter did too. I'd be willing to bet that if I did some searching I could find a Facebook case or two about privacy and the government.
Microsoft isn't sticking up for you, me, or anyone else. They're engaged in some PR. Nothing more. If you want to toot Microsoft's horn you could mention the one and only thing they've done that was any good in the cloud space lately: decoupling themselves from ownership of their UK cloud. By paying someone else to own and operate the gear Microsoft have removed the US legal attack surface for that data. Even if they wanted to, they can't give that data up. They deserve a cookie for that; they were the first major cloud provider to listen to what we've all be screaming about for a decade.
I note, however, that beyond the one instance, they haven't proceeded with that model. Even with their new datacenter in Canada. So I am chalking that up to a PR stunt as well.
I'm not sure who else mobilised their Disaster Recovery team to provide support to Alberta during the current wildfires up in Ft. Mc and also matched employee donations to support the Canadian Red Cross, the same thing that we did for the Calgary floods of 2013
Pretty much every tech company with an Albertan footprint, and most tech companies with a Canadian footprint, even if not Albertan has done something. You'd be surprised the number of them that I am coordinating with who do not want public PR or mention of their efforts. They are just helping because they can. Those companies I respect.
Its a big big world outside of Edmonton,
I am aware. I've been to may parts of it.
and while Microsoft's solutions don't appear favourable in your area / opinion, there's a large portion of other folks around the planet that seem quite happy with them
Actually, while there are many people who are happy with Microsoft, I think you'll find that the actual percentage of individuals and businesses happy with Microsoft is small. Certainly it is much smaller than the number of individuals and businesses that use Microsoft.
Microsoft may be a necessity but it is not something most - or even many - desire. When a gun is at your head, you do as your told. But that doesn't mean that if the gun were put away you'd voluntarily do the same thing.
Do not make the mistake of the Microsoft body corporate and mistake obedience for trust or compliance for loyalty. Microsoft's actions have dispelled trust and it's apathy towards that fact has eradicated loyalty.
All Microsoft has left to count on is fear. And no empire lasts long ruling on fear alone.
As for me, I will keep on being cynical about virtually everyone. Trust is earned, and it takes effort to maintain. I eagerly await any vendors willing to work hard to build that trust amongst its customers, partners, developer ecosystem and its own staff. That's a company I can get behind.
No jobs are certain. Writing least of all.
Only the barbarians to the south, thank $deity.
"Biscuits"? But surely you can't be a real BOFH...I have been led to believe that the dark side has cookies! (See: North American distinction between biscuits and cookies.)
It's a nice fantasy world you live in. Pity it isn't reality. It would be a nice reality. One I'd want to inhabit.
Oh hi, western Canadian here. UBB is strong over here. "Unlimited" doesn't mean unlimited here. And you pay a truly appalling amount for the extra cap. Maybe you easterners have it a little better, but we're still screwed.
"we have a phone company (Telus) and a cable company (Shaw) to choose from"
You can choose between Trump and Clinton.
You can choose between a douche and a turd sandwich.
Having a choice doesn't mean a goddamned thing if both your choices are shit covered shit in buttsauce.
There may be Acaltel ONTs deployed, but Telus insists that you use the Actiontech modems, and refuses to support any other configuration. This is a huge problem for businesses who need to stay in a supported configuration.
The mid-1990s were the dailup era for the masses, but the first (very expensive) ADSL trials were going on, and Canada was at the forefront of that technology. When the first mass market ADSL chips came out in 1998 and 1999, Canada deployed far and wide; quite fast, too. We were recognized in both cases for pushing the envelope. We haven't been since.
Regarding getting access to conduit in Canada, yes, I do have actual experience cutting through the red tape in order to get space to lay lines. Now, that is mostly rural, but some in the big cities as well. The biggest issue is not getting approval to lay new conduit (which Telus is busy doing in Edmonton, for example), or access to municipal-owned conduit. The biggest issue is that when and where a Telco (read: Telus) owns conduit somewhere they say "fuck you" and laugh in your face. They don't share, but they demand access to everything everyone else has.
Telus' interconnection demands are horrific as well. Isn't it funny how, where there is even one otehr backbone provider they suddenly are almost reasonable about fees, but as soon as you're 1 klick out bast Shaw, their prices skyrocket.
And the biggest issue about dealing with the Telcos - again, mostly Telus - is that they fight tooth and nail to prevent any third party from lighting up a network. They screamed red bloody murder about Olds. They're launching every missile they have, from legal challenges to quiet, back room "discussions" with counties in northern Alberta we're working on and they have been nothing but massively obstructionist to rural BC communities that have banded together to deploy municipal (or rural) fibre projects. (See: Kaslo as a great example.)
I am absolutely all about a single standard for access to conduits, rights of way and so forth...but that single standard needs to apply not only to incumbent telcos. It needs to apply to third parties, to municipal and county governments building out their networks and even to individuals.
That the incumbent telcos act as the guardians and gateways to our infrastructure is a huge problem. They have proven time and time again they aren't willing to share, play fair or invest. They are more interested in preventing competition than in servicing customers.
The Telcos are the problem, not the solution. It doesn't have to be that way, but it's the way the telcos seem to want it.
Oddly, yes! I want utilities like power, water, heat and internet to be paid for by everyone and made available to everyone. It is basic infrastructure. A fundamental requirement to exist in today's society.
If you want to milk the hoi polloi, go make luxury purses and try to bamboozle people into thinking they're important. Stay the hell out of delivery of critical infrastructure and services. Access to utilities, health care, education, law enforcement and fire coverage should emphatically not be a function of how much money you have.
Funny, Telus seem to be putting these ridiculous Actiontech pieces of shit into everyone's home here, and we're told for FTTH this is all we'll get as well. No pass through. No "just a modem", no "just an Ethernet port" CPE point. You will get your managed Actiontech device and you will like it. If Telus has decided to finally reverse that decision, then it is a fantastic step in teh right direction.
Could you please tell all the customer service staff about this so that we can get installs without these Actiontech shitmachines? Because what they're actually supporting and allowing is orthogonal to your claims.
As for the rest of your rant: you're full of it. Telus, Shaw, Bell and Rogers had 20 years of virtually zero regulation and Canada went from a world leader in internet connectivity in the mid 90s to a pathetic joke. The regulation is a reaction to the utter unwillingness to step up to the fucking plate.
Access to conduit, poles and the rest is NOT HARD TO GET in Canada. We are enormous and spread out. We make it easy to dig up whole cities at the whim of a Telco. Canada has two seasons: winter and construction, and getting permitting for construction has never been hard in this nation.
@bill.laslo: the open subscription still requires minimum 5 licenses. Same problems as rest. You don't get the Windows 10 that is almost what people actually wanted unless you're prepared to buy in to a minimum 5 extraordinarily expensive licenses to get it.
For the record, Action Packs are emphatically not a "buy once, use forever". Action Pack licenses are only valid so long as you hold a valid Action Pack subscription. In addition, you must update to the latest versions of the software when the Action Pack benefits update.
Source of this knowledge: many Microsoft audits where this discussion has been repeated ad nauseam.
The purpose of an Action Pack is to enable a Microsoft Partner to stay up to date with the latest Microsoft Technologies by implementing them in their environment in a production fashion. For testing, the partner is expected to purchase an MSDN subscription.
Small Businesses looking to buy Windows Enterprise in perpetuity (or on a subscription basis) are goign to need Enterprise Agreements (see: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Licensing/licensing-programs/open-license.aspx#tab=2) and the minimum number of systems licensed is 5.
This means if you do not have an enterprise agreement want one single Windows 10 Enterprise Long Term Service Branch license you must purchase five licenses. Note that you cannot get VSA (for remote access to your Windows instances) unless you purchase Windows on a subscription basis.
Expect to pay significantly more for an Enterprise license than a Pro license.
Now: enjoy paying way the hell more for almost as much control over your Windows 10 instance as you had over your Windows 7 instance!
LTSB: for the privileged few only!
"But is [Windows 10] worse than"
"cancer" Debatable, but probably not. I dislike chemo intensely.
"the Coming of the Beast" \m/ I'm mostly on The Beast's side, so yes, Win 10 is WAY worse.
"the End of Days" if the world ended we wouldn't have to use Win 10, so yeah, Win 10 is worse.
Remix OS is the ****ing future.
I was going to respond to this, but the truth of the matter is that the response ended up being over 600 words, so I'm making that into an article. Keep an eye out for it!
Short version: with the broke-ass end user connections they offer to individuals and SMBs, it isn't!
100Mbit up. You're high fucking larious.
Look, I want 25 Mbit symmetrical. Soothing our telcos won't offer even for those residences that have fibre to the home. The best we can get is from the cable provider: 10 Mbit up for $150 a month, and you'll only get better than 8 Mbit of that every third Tuesday after sacrificing a goat and standing on one foot for an hour.
If you want more than 10 Mbit up you have to jump waaaaaaaaaay up. Quad bonded (2x DSL and 2x DOCSIS) from a third party provider can get you 15 Mbit up, but the line rental to the third party is $300 a month; to stay in business they have to charge over $500 a month, and they can't get faster than a theoretical 40 Mbit (in practice about 20 Mbit) up, because 4 devices is the max a residence can have with out current wiring structure.
So then we're on to "if you have fibre connected to the residence and want a commercial package". First off, most of the providers will flat out refuse to sell you business fibre packages to a residence even if you happen to have FTTH. If you do manage to sweet talk a third party provider into doing it (be prepared for killer latency on that!) you're talking starting at about $1800 a month for 50 Mbit up. If you kiss a lot of toads.
What's the use case? Working from home mostly. Some hobbyist stuff. Almost all related to video. Pushing videos up to Youtube for clients. Working on files between individuals who all work from home. Backing up your SMB's files to a cloud provider. Pushing images to your VPS. Video conferencing.
Upstream matters. I don't give a rat's ass about 1Gbit. But we're so far from even 50 Mbit here that it's stupid. I probably won't see 100Mbit up for residential users for less than an inflation-adjusted $500 a month in my lifetime. And that's a goddamned crime.
Not within my lifetime. Technology be damned. Canadian telcos are butts.
Because I can do maths?
Let's put Netapp to one side because HAHAHAHA Netapp. (I would never sell a company so clearly on its way out to a customer.) So that leaves me comparing Unity to HPE, Dell, HDS and the startups. (We all know nobody can afford IBM.)
Unity doesn't have extra software purchases. This was the very first thing that the EMC product manager told me. They heard this one loud and clear. In theory, upgrades will come out and shouldn't be something you have to buy. Without pay to play then Unity becomes something you can more directly compare to competition.
Unity starts around the $10K mark for hybrids. I don't remember the exact number, but I mentally put it in that box. It isn't a hell of a lot of storage at that price, but if you scale up as a hybrid it doesn't cost too bad.
As an all flash array it can be - is - pretty expensive. Still, it's cheaper than many of the startups, about where I'd expect 3PAR to be. Raw flash to raw flash, Compellent is probably cheaper in the mid range and higher. HDS is definitely cheaper in the high end. (But then again, isn't it always?)
So then in order to be "cheaper" than Unity you have to start comparing Unity's raw flash to the "usable flash" numbers provided by vendors. This is where I start getting into a lot of problems.
Many of my clients are photographers and videographers. A lot of GIS data and other "not really very compressible things". I don't get 2:1 ratios. At best I have seen 1.6:1, and that was with SimpliVity, where the file storage was in a VM.
Now, if Unity was "finished" - and EMC should rightly get the shit kicked out of them for releasing Unity a year too early - and had the forthcoming data efficiency tech, we could start taking about "fake storage versus fake storage".
Is unity going to get its ass handed to it by a solution that does full in-line data efficiency where the workload is VDI? Sure. But VDI is a niche. On the other side of that spectrum is me, storing VMs, videos, pictures, and Windows user data all on the same device (something, I point out, that many of the startups don't support!) and getting my 1.3:1 average data efficiency ratios.
So for me, when I run the numbers I use the ratios I see in the real world. 1.3:1. And I just don't see Unity losing to too many competitors with that ratio. And what about when the update comes down the pipe? How does this change in January when the data efficiency has been out for a few months, the arrays have been kicked around and most of us are ready to start actually considering Unity for production?
At that point competitors don't really get that extra 30% capacity boost, and Unity is even cheaper.
By all means, let's trot out competitors who are cheaper and do more for the same price. Not just at the extreme high end, but at the minimum entry cost and at the middling sizes of the 20TB-40TB range! I have zero love for or loyalty to EMC. Let the price and feature wars truly begin!
When just about anyone else selling arrays is selling at $5 or even $10 usable? Yes. That's a good deal to me. (Especially when what is claimed usable by companies using data efficiency tech is usually about double what is actually achievable.)
Unity is more reliable than a Synology, by far. That means that I start comparing it to competition with the IXSystems TrueNAS at the low end, and then up against Tintri, Tegile, 3PAR and the like higher up. There isn't a whole hell of a lot in between. (Well, Compellent. But for how long?)
When I look at performance and capacity Unity is actually price competitive with SMB-focused hyperconverged appliances, let alone other arrays! And it makes a lot more sense in an environment already built around traditional infrastructure than trying a brownfield shift to HCI.
Also: I am not pre-judging the effectiveness of their hybrid solution. I don't believe in "all flash or go home". So loading it up as a hybrid solution (which starts somewhere around $10K USD) is perfectly acceptable to me, assuming it delivers. So far, people I trust have said the hybrid tech works just fine, and I am working with EMC to get a unit to test for myself.
Unity has a lower floor cost than its competitors. That is a *huge* advantage. Maybe it doesn't work out so well when fully loaded as an all-flash array, but that isn't where I'm looking at it. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of "will this deliver as a 20-40TB hybrid storage array for the SMB and midmarket", a segment that is horrifically underserved. Unity looks like it may well be one of the only solutions to hit that sweet spot and not be butts covered butts in butt sauce.
I've had a good chat with the Unity product manager and I am at the very least optimistic about pricing on this. Typically I'm the guy who says everything is overpriced and I am also the guy who is normally demanding deduplication and compression on everything as well.
That said, for usable storage with the features it does offer and the performance they're committing to...there isn't a whole hell of a lot out there that competes directly with Unity. Even more so if/when data efficiency is added to the mix.
It is the very first time an EMC product has actually excited me. I can't wait to test it.
I think the bigger issue is that Unity promises to be "good enough" at the right price to appeal to the mass market. Undercutting Tintri, Tegile and others for a lot of use cases.
Also: don't underestimate retooling the UI, both GUI and CLI. Ease of use is king: if EMC have solved that, they go a very long way towards damaging the competition.
Unity starts at the right price to make me, as an SMB admin, sit up and take notice. My midmarket customers certainly are talking. The pressure is on now for Tintri and the like to evolve. EMC have changed the rules and nobody gets to be a one-trick pony anymore if they want to survive.
Interesting times ahead. And at this price point, arrays aren't yet dead.
I'd much rather an 8+ hour wait than uninstallable spyware and Windows 10 malware!
Nothing about this is useful. This is all so they can slip in shit like spyware and Win10 upgrade malware without you being able to avoid it.
Arrogant twatdangles, the lot of them!
I am not amused.
FCoTR is the future.
If the application (I.E. SAP) runs on Postgres, what do I care if it isn't like for like feature parity with Oracle? Postgres has some features Oracle doesn't too.
It's the application that matters, not putting your genitals in Oracle's vice.
"Oracle Database is the #1 database and roughly 4/5 SAP customers run Oracle DB, so clearly theres a reason why"
Plenty of reasons why. Lies. Damn lies. Threats. Bribes. Historical "that's how it was always done". Consultants who only know Oracle. Kickbacks to incentivize getting Oracle in the door. You name it! Lots of reasons!
Of course, once Oracle is the DB in play, the company's genitals are in Oracle's vice and all Oracle will ever do is squeeze.
Oracle: every time you think there can't be a company worse than Microsoft, Oracle proves you wrong.
Trump got a majority vote out of what...12 contenders? And has, IRRC, the highest unfavorable rating of any party nominee ever, even within the party that he is supposedly representing.
Trump is a RINO. He brought forth a damned near total showing from a niche of the party. Normally, they don't vote much. They don't participate much at all. But this time, it was the reverse: the bulk of the Republican voters stayed away because they didn't find a candidate they liked. Instead of voting against the other candidates by picking the least horrible, they just didn't vote.
So the fringe of the party got to make noise. And the more noise they made the more of them turned out to vote. The more of them that turned out to vote the more noise was made. The more noise was made the more that loop reinforced...and the more mainstream republicans simply stayed home.
THAT is real world politics. It's called "tyranny of the minority". You are witnessing it in action in the republican primaries right now.
All that is needed for evil to win is that good, moderate or "meh he's kind of okay" men (and women) do nothing. Trump is the candidate that apathy wrought.
Human? I think not.
Simon, meet Tay 2.0. Tay 2.0, go fuck yourself, Nazi princess.
"disparity of income doesn't cause crime."
Bullshit. Our society functions only because everyone agrees to play by the rules. Why would anyone agree to play by the rules if the rules say that you can't get enough food/water/shelter/clothing/health care/education/honest work?
The only incentive for the poor to obey the laws of society is the threat of force. Once you impoverish an individual - let alone a group! - enough, they have nothing to lose (because they're dead either way) and so the threat of force is meaningless.
Income disparity doesn't just lead to crime, it leads to revolution. The totality of human history is that tale told over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
May all those that weren't able to learn from it be first against the wall when the proles rise up.