Feeds

* Posts by Trevor_Pott

4315 posts • joined 31 May 2010

Microsoft's murder most foul: TechNet is dead

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Most Technet sales would be to businesses wouldn't they? "

You'd be wrong. Which is sort of why everyone is so up in arms.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @SelLuser

I'd also like to inject some additional rage in a second comment. You not only make huge assumptions about others, but you know there are whole classes of individuals with accessibility/disability requirements that basically you are writing off as irrelevant. Just throw 'em under a bus, eh? Who cares about people who aren't part of the master race! *hiss*

3
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Freeride @Trevor_Pott

...but my testlab environment is Synology + Samba 4 + CentOS + VMware + a picture of Ballmer with a penis drawn on his face.

They can deem the structure of my testlab environment anything they want. What they can't do is a goddamned thing about it. After all, you don't need to test MS software if 80% of your remaining sysadmin work is "getting MS the fuck out of the SME". The other 20%, well...they know the risks. If they want to Oracle themselves on the great sandbar of Microsoft, let 'em. I give no fucks so long as I get my bag of silver.

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @SelLuser

@AC 16:07

I use right-click context menus you ignorant cuntweasel. Not all of us have the gift of steady, pain free hands. For some of us it hurts to type. For others, we don't have properly designed workspaces. For still others we often work so many remote-whatever support sessions deep that keyboard shortcuts don't always translate.

Think about workflows other than your own. You are not the ubermensh; all men are not striving to be you. I'm a highly mouse-driven user and damned happy with it. I can fly around the screen with my trackball mouse and get things done just as quickly as any keyboard-shortcut addict.

Well, I could...until Microsoft decided that only the middle of the bell curve mattered. Bastards.

6
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Register Ribbon"

Yes. The staff would be in ribbons by the time I was done with them, were that to be introduced...

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Now is the time? [@ Trevor_Pott

@Stevie: we set up preferences we liked (those that were the most Outlook-like) and simply pushed them out with Puppet and/or logon scripts to set up customer systems. Works a treat!

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Grr...

I review technology, regardless of source. For all Microsoft's many - many, many, many (many!) - sins...they make some of the best technology on the planet. I get uppity because they used to be the preferred vendor for "my people" (the SMEs) and they now have kicked us to the curb for the prettier customers (hyperscale).

Loathing Microsoft's business practices will not stop me from reviewing the technology on offer and reviewing it as objectively as I can. My job is to provide information. In a lot of cases it is information on stuff that I won't be using personally.

In addition to reviewing Microsoft's latest greatest, I'll also be reviewing non-Microsoft technologies from other companies. It's just sort of what I do.

7
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Now is the time?

Yep; I used to think that way. Then I realised someone made Thunderbird stock sucking. As soon as I grokked that addons worked the same as Firefox I was set. Is it "as good in all ways" as Outlook? No. Is it "good enough" not that Microsoft is hellbent on getting rid of shared calendars and public folders as Outlook items? Yes.

5
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Allow me to reciprocate

I CONSUME THE LETTER R! ROAR!

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Freeride

Technet never allowed you to use those products in production environments. That was never a debated item. The debate is about the definition of evaluation environments and whether or not SMEs and individual sysadmins can be realistically be expected to shell out thousands - or even tens of thousands - of dollars in order to ensure that Microsoft's patches work as advertised.

Microsoft says "you have $20K worth of MS software in production? We want you to pay at least $6K (to get the base usable version of MSDN) per year to test our patches before deploying them, rent on a cloud for about the same or buy a whole other $20K." They had been telling us "that's what Technet's for" for around a decade.

Now apparently what they had told us wasn't accurate - and remember, the burden isn't on Microsoft to provide you accurate information, it is on you to know what it accurate and what's not! - so we're all of us guilty of financial terrorism thus making Microsoftion Techneticide entirely justified and not a dick move at all. Get it? Got it? Good.

7
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Peoples simply have a mistaken definition of testing

"Testing the suitability of their products" is what most of us used it for. The problem you have is that you can't seem to extend that to include things like "patches" and "service packs" in that definition. The point of the project was to ensure that you could deploy Microsoft software - including their ongoing support items - reliably. Or rather, that's what they told us. Now we get a different story; they need to kill it and with the least PR damage possible. So it's far easier to blame the users of the service than to say straight up "we want more money."

Cowards.

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Grr...

He was talking about the cost of the version with Office. Not the cheapest version. As to "prepared to pay for it as a business cost": fuck you, sir. With a gorilla. In the face. Sideways.

Let's lay some statistics down on you here; this time from Canada.

In December 2011 (the last point of published stats) we had 2,383,796 small or “indeterminate” (or government’s way of saying “too small to register properly”) businesses in our nation. A “small” business is less than 100 seats. There were 18,999 businesses between 100 and 499 seats and 2,528 businesses with 500 or more seats.

That makes 2,528 “enterprises” in my nation versus 2,402,795 SMEs.

A significant chunk of those SMEs - which are by far the majority of the companies in my nation - simply can't afford MSDN. Many of my clients have trouble finding 30-40k for hardware + software every 4 years. To say nothing of individual systems administrators seeking to build home labs to learn. In most cases in the SME world - and thus in most cases int he world, period, administrators don't get Technet or MSDN from work. They have to buy that shit themselves, just like certifications.

Your arrogance is astounding, as is how unbelievably out of touch you are with the people at the coalface just trying to make a living here. You are engaging in a game of "blame the victim" here. No matter how you try to rewrite history, the overwhelming majority of people using Technet were not pirates. They were coalface administrators trying to build a working and experimental environment from the only option realistically fiscally available to them.

Microsoft - and you, frankly - is engaged is nothing more than retroactively criminalizing, sentencing and punishing the very people who have devoted their careers to Microsoft's products.

Let's see what that nets them, shall we?

27
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Linux

Re: Peoples simply have a mistaken definition of testing

Funny how this "clarification" - you'll pardon me if I more properly refer to it as a retcon - goes against years of guidance from Microsoft itself. I have asked very specifically on numerous occasions what the licensing rules are that differentiate Action Packs, Technet, MSDN and so forth. The word on Technet has always been the same: it is for testing (the word always used by MS employees, VAR licensing know-it-alls and other MS reps).

That said, I'm sure rewriting history will make everyone feel guilty about how they've spent years taking crusts of bread (known as "lost sales") out of Microsoft's hands all this time. Once they know they are worthless, thieving freetards then their anger will dissipate, they'll love Microsoft again and their wallets will fly open.

Don't have the money? No problem; they'll work a second job or take out another credit card just for Microsoft. We owe them that much, don't we?

After all, it simply must be true that we've been hearing wrong for a decade. I know it's true because Microsoft now tells me so.

11
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: SBS

Jesus, you don't quit do you? The "Server 2012 Essentials" argument was dismantled here already. Do try to keep up.

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

ENDPOINTS is the measure that matters, not "desktops." Desktops are now facing real competition from smartphones and tablets for end user timeshare. No longer merely in consumption, productivity has begun to move as well.

As for server share: prove it.

6
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Now is the time?

Question - and a serious one - that I think needs answering: what exactly does Office 2013 offer me that LibreOffice doesn't? I mean, besides FUD?

They say everyone only uses 20 features of Office, but everyone uses a different 20 features. I cannot believe for a moment that LibreOffice has all of the features of Office, but I am willing to bet that it has the "20 features" that 80% of the productivity-suite using people of this world want.

LibreOffice doesn't have to be better than Office 2013. It doesn't even have to be "as good." It just has to be "good enough."

13
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Now is the time?

Hey, Anonymous Coward, um...

...yeah, I'm okay with a vastly inferior solution. Let me try to put this bluntly: I can run my business of Windows XP and Office 2003. I sure as shit can run it off Linux.

Is Microsoft's software superior in many respects to what Open Source has to offer? Yes. Does that matter any more? No. I don't need to be able to build a fucking hosted Azure solution to run a business. I'm fine with stuff that's 5-10 years behind the curve.

You know when we hit 2005 and CPU speed just stopped mattering? Well guess what: we've hit that with OSes and productivity suites too. The Enterprise world can careen ahead needing to be up-to-date simply because everyone else is up-to-date.

I'm fucking done with it. Seems like more than a few'll join me.

30
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Allow me to reciprocate

Sir, if I may, I am working on a series of articles about exactly that: replacing Microsoft in the SME. Give me a few weeks and you should have some of the answers you seek.

17
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Except the license doesn't prohibit using it for a testing environment. It can be interpreted that way, however every single Microsoft employee, sales representative, VAR MS licensing specialist and even MS product managers I have spoken to in the past 3 years have assured me that "building a test lab" is exactly the intended purpose. It is the whole reason TechNet was included in the Action Packs.

So you can sling your bullshit somewhere else. The rationale that "TechNet was never for testing" (which I started to see pop up even before I had finished typing the article) flies in the face of everything Microsoft has said about TechNet since the beforetime.

I'm bitching because Microsoft are killing a great service whilst simultaneously getting the drone army to attempt to retcon the purpose of that service in order to change their plea in the court of public opinion from "guilty of murder" to "self defense." What is truly insulting, appalling and downright insane is that a learned Register commenter would be front and center amidst the mob trying to rewrite history to serve the next quarter's bonus targets.

Here I mistakenly thought Register readers were capable of spotting blatant attempts to disconnect message from missive. I am saddened to be wrong.

36
1

At last! Virtual domain controllers just work

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: A couple of notes...

So we're both right...and Microsoft is insane.

*sigh*

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Informative article

I don't know. I doubt it. Any evidence to back this up with other directory systems? I've heard nothing similar about any of the others so far. I'd be interested, if true!

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: A couple of notes...

60 according to all the official documentation I've read AND their technet articles about the VDCs AND the linked blogs in the piece I wrote.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Clones?

Now that I think about it, I was rocking that Norton Ghost 9 CD for a long, long time...

Also: have to go down to Cowgary in a couple days. Going to be a mess, methinks...

0
0

Secret US spy court lets Microsoft, Google reveal their petitions

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The truth is a funny thing

Understanding is a three edged sword, and then the Vorlons annihilate your planet.

1
1

Microsoft talks up devices, Windows 8.1 at developer shindig

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Or you could realise that isn't available to Canadians yet (or wasn't last I checked) and stop being a smart ass. That would require you to think 2 feet in front of your face, however, and I suspect that may be incompatible with your wetware.

D'oh!

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Coat

Download ISO. Install ISO. Patch. How do I log in this stupid store again? Curse loudly. Bang head against desk. Plead. Finally find upgrade method.

Now, if it doesn't blow up during install, let's see if this actually makes Windows 8 as useful for my scenarios as Windows 7 is.

Mine's the one with the bullet to bite on.

4
0

Fusion-io spins up ioTurbine, enhances server flash caching

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Host cache is a bit of a booming space at the moment. Currently working with Proximal Data's solution; good stuff so far. Everyone seems to have a slightly different twist on the idea, one of these days I have to see how FusionIOs stuff differs from the others I've tried.

0
0

Making the case for upgrading from Server 2003

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: You like hard questions? ;)

a) Unless you keep the number of systems you RDP from to a very narrow cone - or you're made out of money - RDP/VDI is too costly to implement. So what good is that?

b) Remote Access is asstastic if your client is Windows 7 because Microsoft refused to backport the client.

c) Centralised deployment is awesome! If you're building Azure. We'll have arguments about the usefulness of that particular religion when it comes to servicing downmarket customers.

d) Damn rights: Server 2012 is finally at parity (well, almost) with VMware, and Server 2012 R2 is so good that you'd swear it can't be the same team that coded Hyper-V 2.0

3) SMB3 is eleventy squillion times better than SMB 2. That said, SMB 3 requires Windows 8, so what good is that?

Most of the reasons for Server 2012 over 2008 are only applicable in three scenarios:

1) You have so much "rolling around in it" money that you can ignore being pecked to death by licensing ducks.

2) You are willing and able to block move your entire infrastructure to Windows 8/Server 2012 all in one go.

3) You operate at datacenter scale.

If you are going from Server 2003 you might as well go Server 2012 in the hope that Windows 9 will be "not ass" enough to make the leap on your clients from Windows 7. At that point you've at least upgraded your backend to be better suited to that hopeful (but bloody unlikely) future.

If you are trying to build the case for Server 2008 --> Server 2012, I might be able to stomach the arguments. 2008 was pretty bad.

If you are trying to make the argument for 2008 R2 --> 2012 you've lost me completely. If you were using Hyper-V on 2008 R2 then by now you're already 2012 .

As to the rest of the market on Server 2008 R2...

Server 2008 R2 + Windows 7 ain't broke and I have yet to be presented with even a marginal business case to attempt to fix it. The greatest value Server 2012 brought to the extant 2008 R2 customer was the ability to drive down VMware licensing costs come renewal time.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Flame

Re: no smb 2012 !!!

Exchange in the cloud is not a solution unless you're flush with too much cash and American. The rest of us don't upgrade every refresh (so Microsoft's cloud offerings are TERRIBLE value) and live in countries where we as business owners can be sued if and when the PATRIOT act is used to get access to our customers' data (which in SMBs lives in e-mail far more often than any other form of storage.)

Sorry, but for all that Office 365 is awesome - well, when it's working, which isn't a lot lately - it is emphatically *not* an appropriate solution for a non-American SMB..or any SMB that doesn't upgrade with each release. (Which would be most of them.)

What's more, upgrading with each release is not a good thing. Microsoft has a nasty habit of releasing a steaming bucket of gorilla shit and then taking 3 versions to get the thing mostly usable. Then they crap out another bucket of shit and we're on the train again.

SBS 2011 had a user limit of 75. Essentials 2012 has a user limit of 25. Microsoft got so much shit for that they had to come up with a horrible workaround that rightfully earned them scorn and enmity from virtually their entire SME partner base.

In addition to killing off Exchange, Sharepoint is gone.

Essentials 2012 does not have WSUS

And that's just off the top of my head. If you are honestly peddling Server 2012 Essentials as a replacement for SBS 2011 you're either a complete idiot or an MS PR flunky that is truly abominable at their job.

Microsoft has abandoned the SME and kicked them in the nuts on the way out. SME is my turf, bub; don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: SMB

Brussels Sprouts: a little bit of margarine, some nutmeg and some chopped almonds. Delicious.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

But what to replace the XP with?

http://www.linuxmint.com/

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/coolship-an-android-desktop-computer-that-looks-like-a-keyboard?browse_v=old_no_dropdown

http://www.apple.com/ca/mac/

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: NT 4

My personal log system is an old Sanyo 386 notebook with the screen sheared off (I am using a 10" orange IBM external monitor instead) with 1GB of RAM running DOS, WP 5.1 and Lotus 123. I use it every single day. There is a working TRS 80 in my basement used to monitor the Lizard's cage via a sensor suite.

"Old" doesn't mean "useless."

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Mushroom

Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome. (Trevor @07:42

Well, it's a good thing you're not humble. Because you're wrong AND full of shit. I like laughing at those people before I wake up.

Have you even used Server 2008 R2 DHCP? Evidently not. Your right place is right about...

1
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: SMB

What's wrong with 3389 forwarding? Port 18354 --> 3389 on a target. There has been exactly one RDP bug in the past decade that could allow a user to spoof the protocol and log in. They patched it ASAP. RDP is reasonably secure, especially if local administrator-level and domain-controller level users have been denied access. I know there are security paranoids out there that would prefer I use RDP inside an SSH tunnel inside a VPN through TOR, but this isn't the DoD. It's a guy wanting convenience to get to his data. Ease of use, you know, that thing about which no fucks are given by asbergers types?

I'm getting a certain sense of "I like Windows 8, so anyone who doesn't needs to be secretly condescended to because my preferences really should apply universally. If you don't like the same things I like, there is quite obviously something wrong with you, you short-bus loser." It's rarely a conscious thing, but when people have preferences we don't understand we all do it. To some extent at least. Computer nerds are the worst. You'd think they'd be beyond these sorts of petty ostracisation, but they enjoy finding reasons to isolate and belittle more than any group I've encountered. (VIM! EMACS! FIGHT!)

SMB3 versus SMB2: SMB3 goes faster in almost every scenario. Does it go fast enough to justify having to switch to Windows 8? Fuck no.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Stop

Re: SMB

RDPing into the server is not odd.

A) when you work remotely you have to RDP into something (unless you use VPNs, which many/most SMBs don't have set up.)

B) The remote administration tools only work on "like" versions of the client operating system. You can't administer Server 2012 from Windows 7 and fuck you very much if you suggest I use Windows 8.

If I have two servers in from of me and each one does what I need it to do with the only difference in at the end of the day functionality being UI then I will pick the server with the UI that works best for me.

After all, I am the guy that has to use it. A UI is there to make my life as an administrator easier. That is not an irrelevant aspect of the operating system design. In fact, it's a goddamned critical one. Somehow a whole chunk of nerds seem to have forgot the reason we invented these things in the first place: to make our lives easier.

If the new version doesn't make my life easier than the old version why in the flaming monkey fuck would I spend money it?

"Newness" has no value. "New for the sake of new" is not a relevant argument. The item must deliver tangible benefits to me or my client for money to be spent on it. If it doesn't, then there is no incentive to splash the cash on that mouldy metro stash.

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Hyper-V

Mind the oracle licensing; you don't simply pay licences for the number of cores assigned to the VM, but rights you Must pay licences for the total number of cores available in the host! Honestly, you are probably better off running Oracle on metal strictly for licensing reasons.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Facepalm

Re: no smb 2012 !!!

Damn straight. Microsoft kicked SMBs in the nuts, let them fall the the ground, then demanded those same SMBs subscribe to be kicked in the nuts over and over again each year.

Small Business Server 2011 was bloody brilliant and I won't soon forgive them for murdering it. The bastards.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Alien

Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...

Oh FFS. Looky: VMware: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/12/vmware_enterprise_review/

They give me word limits, eh? Sometimes you only do a topic at a time, not "HERE IS EVERY PRODUCT UNDER THE SUN COMPARE THEM ALL ASDFOMFGWTFBBQ"

I'm now a wikipedia, I'M A HUMAN BEING! :flailing:

6
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ... @gerdesj

I slag on interfaces for usability ("where the hell is X?") and change management ("GOOGLE, STOP MOVING MY FUCKING BUTTONS!") I never once claimed to have a sense of aesthetics. If you've a better Wordpress theme - or better colour ideas I could bang into the existing one - I'm entirely open to it.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Other Vendors

Zentyal has a $deity long way to go before it's actually usable. Not the least of which is birthing a remote access protocol that isn't made out of slow and horrible. It has an almost usable web UI - but still nowhere near as comprehensive or well supported as Virtualmin/Webmin/Usermin - and about the only nice thing I can say for the desktop UI is "at least it isn't Unity."

Zentyal needs more UX TLC and to start putting R&D into places in the Linux ecosystem (like the aforementioned remote access protocols and UX) that other distros won't. Until then it's Just Another Distro that doesn't net much over *min. For the cost, I expect more...or at the very least a commitment to a roadmap that will get those who bet their businesses on Zentyal where we need to go.

Wake me when Zentyal has taken over development of the FreeRDP server (now merged into Weyland, but still needing lots of dev support to move forward). When they've made a commitment like that - with some real, tangible benefits to the SME user that will ultimately place Zentyal ahead of the myriad other competing Linux distros in the area - I will start to believe.

That said, they're not a bad distro if you can't afford a Synology.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome.

I don't know man, my SMB stable is pretty hard core Small Business Server 2011. You'll pry that out of their cold, dead hands. When you do, I'm almost certain it will be replaces with a Synology, not "Microsoft Azure NSA Edition with +1 to yearly subscription $$$." I wholly expect them to keep clinging to that OS until it goes out of support.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Unhappy

Re: You like hard questions? ;)

I try to ignore those because they make me sad. It took until Server 2012 before IIS even got a workable bloody FTP server. How many of those websites are running on old? Sads. I have many.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Pint

Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome.

With the sole exception of domain controllers - seriously guys, virtualisation aware DCs in Server 2012 are the shit - I can't make the case for moving from Server 2008 R2 to Server 2012. The case for Server 2003 --> Server 2012 is easy. But Server 2008 R2 is a beloved old friend that is more than good enough to get the job done.

It used to be that I was perfectly comfortable with Server 2003 R2. DFSR was really all I needed to make most of what I do work fine. Then I got a Server 2008 R2 licence and set it up as a DC with DNS and DHCP. Now I can't go back. I just can't do it; Server 2003 is just too old.

You know what won me over? The ability to right click on a system in DHCP and add a reservation. That's it; right there. I wasn't won over by a firewall or a protocol, I wasn't won over by encryption or the power of Greyskull. I was won over because someone put an improvement into the operating system that does what computers are supposed to do in the first place: make boring repetitive tasks easier.

I find it interesting to note, however, that I am not nearly so rah-rah about Server 2012? Why? Because Microsoft threw ease of use out the Window. They became obsessed with the technology itself and fuck the people who have to actually use it.

If I wanted to live in a world like that, I'd use Linux. Oh wait, I do! Though it would send our resident hypertroll into paroxysms of rage, I pick Linux not because of nerdly masturbation or ethical handwaving. I choose it because in very specific circumstances it is actually *way* easier to use than Server 2012.

If you go the Server 2012 route you're stuck with the same damned things as you are on the "commercial Linux" route: mind-bogglingly shitty UIs or the shell. The shell is the aformentionned "rote memorization route" and we've wound the argument back 'round to "this isn't going to work for SMEs."

The real question is "what's going to come after Server 2008 R2 for the small business world?" It sure as shit isn't the cloud; well, not for anyone that cares about their data or not getting sued into a lump of coal. (Hi, Echelon!) The truth is that I don't really know the answer. I think there's a gap in the market here that simply isn't being filled.

That basically leaves me with hoping Synology decides to build a rockstar ecosystem around the DSM. They seem to be the only play that gives anything close to a damn any more...and it's not really all that close to a damn at all.

I personally think that the era of installed operating systems is simply over for the SME. Virtual and physical appliances are the future. The overwhelming majority of these will be Linux based, with the off BSD and Windows units making appearances for colour.

Microsoft and Oracle (via Solaris/ZFS) are sitting on the technologies required to make great SME gear. They won't do so because they fear cannibalising their cloud and enterprise licenceing markets.

Too many Linux types are Eadon-class zealots. They can't see beyond their own neuroses long enough to solve the UI problems. My recent interactions with Microsoft make it clear that under no circumstances do the give any fucks whatsoever about addressing usability issues either.

The closed source giants say "fuck users and SMEs, they aren't worth the money." Open source giants say "fuck users and SMEs, it's their own damned fault if they are too stupid to see the perfection of our glorious design." The next-generation SaaS vendors are all about the users and SMEs, slaving over designs until they are intuitive, but demand vendor lock-in, or your privacy in exchange for that usability. Worse, they're mostly based in the US, so the other 6.3 Billion of us can't use them!

It's starting to feel lonely here down at the bottom. No love for the SMEs or end users from any of the players out there. You know you've hit rock bottom when your hopes for the endpoint boil down to "maybe Tizen won't suck too bad" and your hopes for user-grokkable servers are a black box like Synology.

Beer, because this is damned depressing already.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Required support tools?

I don't understand won't you require such tools with Server 2012.

Nope, you won't need to buy all (or most) of those tools if you run an OS under support. Server 2012 is quite capable of taking care of itself, thank you. This isn't the Windows XP era; you don't need to piss yourself in terror at the thought of running a Windows system with an external IP address. You can pretty much do an "upgrade in place" to your existing badly-designed network without having to rearchitect the whole damned thin and carrying on with a shite security model for the next 10 years or so.

Should you be tearing up your network and redesigning everything so that there is massive amounts of segregation, multiple firewalls from independent vendors, IDS systems to detect everything, etc? Yes. Will 99%+ of companies unless you have a gun to their heads? No.

Remember that most companies are SMEs. "Eggshell security" (a hardened edge offering a single point of defence protecting a relatively wide-open and "squishy" internal network) is the best they can afford. Not merely for CapEx but for OpEx reasons.

As soon as Server 2003 moves out of support there is no rational way to keep on doing eggshell computing. The first trojan that happens along with annihilate your entire network. Server 2012 is secure enough and keep up to date with patches, etc, that you can keep on this path with about the same level of risk (probably lower) than you had before Server 2003 went out of support.

It isn't the proper way to do things, but it is the common way people do things. Server 2012 basically buys you another decade or so during which you don't have to redeisgn the entire network and retrain all your staff.

If you had access to the source code then you could recompile the old app to run on Server 2012.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'd still need someone who could deal with library changes between the two and so forth. Either way, most people don't have access to the source code. Welcome to capitalism. It sucks. Mind who you vote for next time and maybe we can slowly start to change this, eh?

2
0

Microsoft: Someone gave us shot in the ARM by swallowing Surface tabs

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The author is a wanker

I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF JETPACK JOYRIDE

2
0

Premier League seeks court order to ban footie-streaming Swedish site

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Pint

Old media *yawn*

Just die already, eh?

1
4

Ask Trevor Pott ANYTHING about Office 365

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Why is latency so high?

I've noticed this as well. It's typically been related to issues with the AD infrastructure, in many cases on the MS side where you can't touch it. It's "open a ticket" time...

0
0

Cultivated dope-smoking Welshman barred from own shed

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Somebody told me

Hey, when you detox maybe we can have a real conversation. In the meantime, here's some knowledge for you:

THC is harmful to humans in high enough quantities. Doing a resin extract on high-grade marijuana (such as BC Hydro) from a relatively small number of bugs is more than enough to move from "pleasant recreational high" into "potential for harm."

The amount of THC to in a marijuana leaf when compared to the fibrous content moves the leaves out of any semblance of "useful for a high" and into "getting on as bad as tobacco". Smoking marijuana leaves will kill you, the same as smoking cigarettes will. To get a buzz off of marijuana leaves (with the one or two specially bred strains set to one side) you are going to have to smoke a god-awful amount of the stuff. Far - far - more than is healthy. What's more, you'll probably notice negative chemical interactions with non-THC things in those leaves way before the THC gets you baked.

So yeah, all things in moderation...and learn some science before you go sticking chemicals in your body, eh? Another thing worth considering: if you are so wrapped up in marijuana that someone pointing out that it does have downsides and must be taken in moderation is enough to feel to you as though you are personally attacked then you have a fucking problem. Emotionally bonding with a chemical substance enough to have incorporated it's use into your sense of personal identity is a strong component of psychological addiction and you probably want to have that looked at.

Take it from a hardcore caffiene addict: you're a hell of a lot better off if you can actually just walk away from the stuff. Not say you can, or think you can, but actually can. Control the use, man, don't let the use control you. Now get the heck out of my face I need more coffee.

2
0

Cuba bound? Edward Snowden leaves Hong Kong

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @bigtimehustler: I have to say that I agree with every word you have posted.

If they want us to accept their "leadership" then they have to accept we have a say whether they like it or not.

No privacy invasion or economic exploitation without representation!

5
0

Data retention a very hot potato says Oz parl't commitee

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Surprisingly sane. I'm not against the government possessing a 2-year metadata TiVo so long as the restrictions on access are pretty damned tight, courts aren't secret and oversight is provided by civil liberties organizations, not government shills.

2
0