4451 posts • joined 31 May 2010
It costs the same and you get less. If you want the same functionality as the previous version it costs you far more than that previous version.
Re: "no particular reason why it couldn't work on MySQL"
SQL server came with SBS Premium. Cheap like borscht for a real copy of SQL.
The argument today isn't about GUI versus CLI. It's about GUI versus TUI. You might want to pay attention to the world before you say stupid things for no apparent logical reason.
Re: Huh, 80 IPs at home...?
I submitted an article that covers most of that...I imagine it will get published at some point or another...
I am looking for application "UltraVNC Viewer". I type in: "VNC". Result: "No Results Found".
I am looking for application "LibreOffice Writer". I type in: "Word". Result: "No Results Found".
I am looking for application "LIbreOffice Writer". I type in: "Wordperfect". Result: "No Results Found".
I am looking for application "$any_web_browser". I type in: "Google". Result: "No Results Found".
I am looking for application "Windows Live Messenger". I type in: "MSN". Result: "No Results Found".
I am looking for application "The Gimp". I type in: "Photoshop". Result: "No Results Found".
I am looking for application "Path of Exile". I type in: "Diablo". Result: "No Results Found".
All are fairly common issues where either a subcomponent of a name is not properly brought up in search, a common competitor item is not brought up when the "genericised" name is typed in, a rebranding has occurred or I search for an application category instead of the application name.
Search as the primary user interface not only makes remembering things far more important than it was previously it makes not being "on message" with the latest greatest branding an outright thoughtcrime!
How can you find a competitor's software if the gateway to the interface is a search application that doesn't give equal time to all installed applications of the same category? I think it's far worse than Google's "Google Maps" fiasco. At least Mapquest and Bing Maps showed up in search at some point in the list. Unless you know exactly what you're looking for, the apps installed won't show up in Windows Search.
I wonder what % of the population knows the exact name of the applications installed?
Re: I had a thought, forming in my 'ead...
Agreed. I, for one, disable CEIP on all machines. Track me not...bitch.
Re: 32 comments and not one reference to The Prisoner?
Oh come now, I thought the title of the piece was an adequate reference, no?
Re: restricted vision
If you still use Flash on a website then you deserve nothing less than 2 weeks in the stocks in the town square. There's just no excuse for this on new websites. (Though I have some sympathy for it existing on older sites that haven't been updated.)
Re: The blind
Blind people use screen readers. What you need are versions of your site that are easily read and used by those with screen readers.
It basically means writing two sites; one simple and textual for blind people. No fancy anything, no graphics, no fooferah. The other a pain in the ASCII CSS nightmare for the sighted.
Personally, all my future websites are going to be for the unsighted first. Content is king. The sighted stuff will come later, after we've finished beating the content into whatever is the visual aesthetic of the day. (Though I remain "not a fan" of a steamrollered-flat Metro-fetish of today's designers.)
Re: Very glad that someone is at least thinking about this
I don't have a problem with compulsory change. In fact, I prefer it. Someone gives me orders and it is my duty to obey. If it fails catastrophically, it's on their head, not mine. If I see a demand for Windows 8 from my clients, then I will run a Windows 8 box on my desk alongside my CentOS, Windows XP, Windows 7, and various OSX boxes. Just because I don't like the change in question doesn't mean I won't stump up and do the job.
The issue is the not all change is good, and change for change's sake is stupid. Change needs to provide a clear benefit. To me, to my coworkers or to my employer. If the change in question offers no clear benefit then why in $deity's name should we engage in it?
Should we engage in change because a $software_Company blogger or executive tries to shame people through statements like "holding back progress"?
Should we engage in change because that change reduces costs or advances a strategic plan of one of our vendors?
Should we engage in change because of peer pressure, lobbying, marketing or advertorials?
Or should we only engage in change where there is a definable reason to do so that benefits us? I'm not afraid of change at all. I am, however, overworked, exhausted and poor. If you want to foist change upon me you're going to have to demonstrate quite clearly how that change will make my life better. If you can't do it then I will resist.
Re: the sony case is interesting
That social magnification thing I talked about? Yeah...
No, actually, I can see both feet. They're down there, far away from my mouth. I reiterate: you've got your head up your ass. The world changed. We became more able to recognize a disease and we also became able to recognize that it isn't black and white; it exists on a spectrum with some people having it worse than others.
You are using it merely as a way to discriminate against others. In this case: those who have (or likely have) some form of Asperger's but isn't "as bad" or "as prominent" as you feel it needs to be in order to be labelled. Well who the fuck are you and why should we give half a bent shit about your opinion on the matter?
More to the point, where - exactly - do you get off diagnosing people over the internet, only through short text comments to say if they do or don't have Asperger's?
Remove cranium from sphincter then talk.
Re: Asperger's and IT
I must dissent. ADHD is not "mild." It may manifest as mild in the overwhelming majority of patients...but the very same thing is true of Asperger's. ADHD can be a crippling, life-altering mental illness that sets you apart from everyone in the world and prevents you from living a normal life. Undiagnosed and untreated it can - and does - lead to depression and suicide.
I have very severe adult ADHD. I was incredibly lucky to have recieved novel, experimental treatments as a child. They changed my life...and the lives of millions of others.
First was a series of therapies that introduced to me meditation - first guided and then unguided - which allowed me to be able to attain a level of functionality that someone with ADHD like mine rarely achieves at such a young age. (I couldn't stand Ritalin or Dexedrine; they made me feel emotionally deadened. They changed my personality and I didn't like it.) This lead to being one of the people testing the early prototypes of the neurofeedback equipment that would eventually go on to become a front-of-line treatment for ADHD that now helps most people manage the illness.
Combined with ritual abuse of coffee (you still need stimulants, damn it!) I am a relatively high-functioning ADHD adult. But I am not - and I never will be - "normal." There's something just slightly "off" about me. I don't follow a single train of thought, certainly not with the intense focus of an Aspie. Instead, I follow hundreds or even thousands of trains of thoughts simultaneously. I examine all outcomes to an event at the same time.
This makes me particularly good at research but terrible in large groups. Understand me when I say I cannot block out stimulus occurring around me. That's the true pain of someone with deep ADHD. The average person can stand in a crowded room and focus only on the conversation they are participating in; look only at the person speaking. I cannot do this.
If you put me in a room with 50 people having 25 conversations then I will hear and simultaneously process all 25 conversations. Worse; my brain will run rampant, running predictive analytics on the conversations around me, analyzing body language, dress, social moores, even lighting cues to see how all of the affects everything from an individuals breathing to their choice of words. Show me a flock of birds and my mind will attempt to establish trajectory and velocity for each member. I can not turn this off. I am lacking that portion of my brain.
Conventions for me are physically painful. This year I am going to PuppetConf, VMworld and Spiceworld. I cannot describe in words how much I do not want to go to these events. They will beunending migraines that I can guarantee you will quite literally reduce me to weeping by the end of each day.
And yet, it's part of the job. This is part of living and working in a "normal" world. I am considered a "high functioning" ADHD individual, so much so that most people would never know that I had it. So for me, it isn't bad. It is something I can live with. Many others have it much worse, often because it went untreated.
ADHD isn't "mild." Not at all. It is something you can learn to live with...but someone with ADHD will never be "normal." That - and the stigma that goes with it - is the most damning thing of all.
Re: Aspergers and IT
Eadon did know when to shut up. He didn't care. That's the difference; being an Aspie isn't a get out of Jail free card. When you keep on keeping on despite multiple warnings then you are making a choice consciously that cannot be excused by any position on the Autism spectrum.
I have some pretty bad ADHD - itself on the autism spectrum - even though I am somewhat high functioning. It has given me a sympathy for Aspies that has lead to many friendships which I hold very dear. Aaron among them.
Despite this, I have no sympathy for Eadon. He made a conscious choice to berate, belittle, use ad homenim attacks and push far beyond the repeatedly defined boundaries of acceptable behaviour. I have no problems with his being reinstated to personhood as a general concept, but such would have to be accompanied by a "come to Jesus"-class discussion about boundaries and a firm agreement on his part to abide by them.
If my read on the matter is correct - that he knowingly and purposefully chose to blow past the lines of acceptable behaviour - then such agreement would not be possible. Being an Aspie can make recognizing boundaries difficult, but it does not preclude the person from just being a douchy troll.
Re: Little Johnny's name
"Fashionable?" Have you ever considered that increased diagnosis of mental disorders comes largely from an increased awareness of the disorder and more accurate tools for performing the diagnosis?
As for you, you do indeed seem to suffer from something quite trendy. It's called crainiorectal inversion.
I give you compliments all the time, and you'll damned well accept them because "YES, SIR!" :)
Seriously though, it's nice to see the vultures around here being so very accepting. You're good people, my friend. I'm glad they see in your writing the same intelligence and potential that I do. Three cheers for Aaron!
Okay, now that I've been the evil friend by complimenting you when I know it makes you flustered, I'll shut up.
Re: "Mergfield entries"
Actually, implementing VBA into LibreOffice is a current project. Already they have made many basic scripting elements work in Calc. They are working on Writer and Base right now.
Now, if I am incorrect in what you're asking about, please provide me more information! I like learning new things and I am unsure what exactly you're up to here that LibreOffice won't do.
Re: Hamcheeseandonion is actually wrong
MSDN may be the licence solution that Microsoft uses to license test environments now. It was not always thus. Any attempt to reinterpret TechNet licensing to remove testing from it's usage cases is nothing more than a desperate attempt at newspeak. Convince the proles that the war in Eurasia is going exactly to plan.
It is only with the build up to TechNet's murder that MSDN has gained the "testing" role and the offering on the table with MSDN as a "replacement" for TechNet is wholly inadequate.
You can shovel shit as as much you want but it will still smell just as bad. But fear not, citizen, for we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: Hamcheeseandonion is actually wrong
MSDN Platforms is not included in Microsoft's buy now site. The cheapest on that site is MSN Operating Systems which starts at $700.
MSDN platforms is available only via Enterprise subscription, Select, Select Plus, Open value and Educational solutions, starts in around the $750 mark (If you hunt for a deal) and still doesn't include Office.
Official information on MSDN Platforms is functionally non-existent and thus not only can any MS professional be excused for not knowing about it's existence, but most of what is known is inference or speculation based on information exposed by partners. (Unless Microsoft has very recently finally posted an official page on the damned thing.)
MSDN Platforms is not only more than double the price of TechNet it isn't a direct substitute for what TechNet contained. Not Good Enough. Not by a long shot.
Also: you are sort of right in that MSDN platforms does not include Visual Studio but does include Team Foundation Server (?!?) as per this document"and MSDN Platforms subscriptions include a server license and one Client Access License for Visual Studio Team Foundation Server 2012. "
It also separately says "Visual Studio Ultimate with MSDN, Visual Studio Premium with MSDN, Visual Studio Professional with MSDN, Visual Studio Test Professional with MSDN, and MSDN Platforms subscribers can download and deploy one instance of Team Foundation Server 2012. These same MSDN subscribers are granted a Team Foundation Server 2012 CAL to be used within their organization (it is not valid for use of Team Foundation Server acquired by a different organization)."
The entire idea of TFS being in it but not VS gives me the question marks.
Re: TechNet Moaning
I've built an entire career on Microsoft. Deployed their technologies in almost all client locations. Trained on them, memorized the structure, syntax, layout and operation of their technologies and I still currently make over 80% of my income either supporting clients that use Microsoft technologies in the wild or writing about Microsoft technologies for The Register. Microsoft has recently flown me down to Redmond to show me Server 2012 R2 in all it's glory; just a few days ago they hooked me up with an MSDN account so that I could continue to build my test lab.
To suggest that I have "axes to grind" with Microsoft that would cause me to make false accusations in public is not only insulting it is patently ridiculous. I have every incentive on Earth to shove my nose so far up Microsoft's ass that when they speak it is with my voice. Without Microsoft I would be unable to pay my mortgage and I would have no career.
To speak out against Microsoft's practices - from shutting down Technet to pointing out that VDI licensing is holding back entire industries - is risky bordering on suicidal for me. Microsoft does not treat its critics well; look at how long Mary Jo Foley was banned for doing what reporters are supposed to do during the Microsoft monopoly trial. Every time I speak up I run the very real risk of being blackballed and having my entire livelihood collapse.
So no, I don't have "axes to grind" with Microsoft. Quite the opposite; I want a strong, healthy, vibrant Microsoft so I can continue to make money off of them until I retire. VMware doesn't spend nearly so lavishly and I don't have the network of contacts inside any of the other titans of technology to stand a snowball's chance in a neutron star of turning them into my cash cow should Microsoft start drawing down.
I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out. If you honestly believe that I would make shit up just poke Microsoft in the eye then you are a fucking idiot. You are even more of an idiot if you believe that the person who writes about trust, trustworthy computing and the importance of legal risk mitigation is going to post confidential customer information on the internet because some butt-snorkling coward is too goddamend lazy to pick up the phone and start calling systems administrators and partners around the world to see exactly how widespread Microsoft's dispersal of this message was.
Unlike some who call themselves "journalists" - especially those who report on Microsoft - I not only have legitimate (and ongoing) experience in the field I am reporting on, I go out of my way to cultivate contacts amongst systems administrators, CIOs, VARs, MSPs, and so forth to better understand the industry I occupy at all levels of the stack. My experience as regards Microsoft's messaging is not unique. Christ man, the comments section of this article alone should be enough to demonstrate that to anyone capable of even the most basic intellectual honesty.
If you want to malign me or impugn my trustworthiness you feel free to do so. As an SME sysadmin with a crippling weight problem, too much personal debt, an underwater mortgage, a lack of post secondary credentials that means my mommy will never respect me and the traditional self-confidence and personal image issues born of a lifetime of social ostraciseation as a nerd I don't have a fucking ego to offend. You cannot think less of me than I do of myself.
What you should probably bear in mind, however, is that my readers know me. They know my tics and my foibles. They know that I am honest to a fault. (I am such a terrible liar that it has gotten me into trouble on more than one occasion because calling things like you see them means you say things people don't want to hear.)
Trying to paint my article, my comments - and by extension those of all the others who have raised their voices alongside mine - as the works of a liar bent on sticking one to Microsoft simply reveals your own prejudices and intentions. I'd say you've done my work for me in this thread, sir. You've called yourself out in a far more efficient manner than I ever could.
I will leave it at that and let the reader decide. Good day.
Re: Peoples simply have a mistaken definition of testing
have to agree with hamcheeseandoninon: the word directly from Microsoft - from their employees, product managers and licensing specialists - as well as from their VARs was that I was not only allowed to build a lab for testing patches and new software versions from my TechNet licences, I was strongly encouraged to do so.
On more than one occasion Microsoft has furnished me personally with a TechNet licence for the express purpose of building a testlab. I remember getting one with an MCP exam I took for exactly that purpose. I was given one for attending a conference and another as part of my post-secondary education. I am pretty sure I've gotten at least one for blogging stuff. This year marks the very first time ever that Microsoft has provided me an MSDN subscription for that same purpose. It's the first year I have ever even had someone suggest MSDN as being useful for me as a systems administrator who does not do development on or for Windows in any way shape or form.
MSDN was always described as for developers who wanted to stand up environments to test builds of their software against. I have never once been told by Microsoft before 2013 that MSDN was the subscription level required for building a testlab. I had even asked that question several times - probably more than a dozen - to be absolutely sure during the last audit I participated in.
This was to ensure I understood the differentiation between Action Pack and TechNet licences. I very specifically asked if I could use a TechNet licence to stand up a testing VM for a third party application so that I could test if Microsoft patches would affect it. I was crystal clear on this and was told quite explicitly "that is what TechNet is for."
Microsoft has changed their positioning on this only very recently and is now retconning as hard as they possibly can.
Just because Microsoft's wetware tells you that something is so and has always been so does not make it the truth. Here's a little shocker for you: Microsoft distorts the truth, plays lose with the facts and outright lies to achieve their aims. Critical thinking, it's an important skill especially when combined with actual experience in the subject matter you're so prodigiously butt-snorkling about.
Re: TechNet Moaning
That Microsoft wants desperately to change the story on "what TechNet was for" doesn't alter the guidance they themselves gave to partners, cert holders and end users when asked direct questions on the matter.
As to comparing to other vendors like Oracle, you are absolutely right Oracle does not offer a simliar package. Oracle also doesn't give a rat's ass about SMEs and I do seem to recall making the compairaison rather directly between Microsoft and Oracle in my article.
Microsoft has abandoned the low margin SMEs, power users hobbyhorses and enthusiasts. Trying to argue that Microsoft are morally and ethically correct in doing so because "everyone else has done it" is weak at best and completely misses the point.
Either Microsoft's own representatives have been lying to millions of us in the guidance they provided for roughly a decade or Microsoft are fucking SMEs, power users hobbyhorses and enthusiasts over right now. There are no other alternatives.
Just because you can interpret a document in a manner that suits Microsoft's current business priorities does not retroactively make that how it was was interpreted by Microsoft or retroactively alter the guidance their people provided when asked direct questions. No matter how badly Microsoft or the attendant sycophant brigade want it to be so.
Re: TechNet Moaning
A) timebomed evaluation copes are inadequate.
B) MSDN, volume licensing and software assurance are too expensive for most businesses.
It must be nice to believe that the entire world can be served by the narrow cone of your own experience; reality be damned, just stump up the dollars that aren't there, son, or do without. You didn't really need security, patches, or any other aspect of a business, did you? If you did, well, surely you can afford enterprise margins or cloud subscriptions!
Don't forget to pay your lawyer that little extra to deal with the fact that assholes with more money than human compassion have delegated you to be the legal canary in the coalmine.
It's easy to simply write off millions when you're seated atop a comfortable horse.
A) I was referring to systems administrators who work for companies too poor or too cheap to pay for things like technet, training and so forth. There are millions of them around the world and this is a knife in their belly. Those men and women are my brethren and sistren. Until only just recently I was one of them; no consulting company of my own, no budget beyond asking myself "do I buy a steak or put a few more dollars into the pot for the tools I need to do my job."
Apologists can condescend them all you want, or suggest that their employers should pay but reality doesn't comply whit the fantasies of those who set licensing policies. This is a direct attack on people like me; it is Microsoft saying that those who have spent their careers and lives doing what I have done are irrelevant, inconvenient, and above all guilty unless proven innocent.
I'll not stand idly by whilst one of the only groups of people in this world I can readily identify with is maligned, marginalized and shamed.
B) For your information, this article was written during the only weekend off I've taken in a year. It was the only weekend I've had to see my wife in two months. She's on location on an acting job and I won't get to see her for at least another two months. So I was on vacation. Some things are more important than my own personal amusement.
C) I don't have an MS addiction. I've been using Red Hat since late 1994 and have had periods of only a few months since 1995 when I wasn't running a network somewhere consisting of Red Hat, Apple and Microsoft.
Technology is technology, regardless of the purveyor. I disconnect my feelings regarding business practices from my respect for the technology produced. Microsoft makes good tech. They make shitty people.
Your understanding of the situation - and why so many are upset here - is at best incomplete at worst flat out wrong. What's more, hiding behind legalities like "consumer protection laws" as a means of trivializing the challenges this move has introduced into the lives of so many is simply offensive. It's easy to blithely demand people pay more, change the world around them to be more like you desire or simply write them off when they lack the power, authority or money to make others choose differently.
It is a different thing entirely to live in that world for decades. Perhaps you should. You might learn a thing or two about compassion and why the intersection of business and ethics needs be a primary concern not something we can allow to be overshadowed by the trumpets and drums of quarterly profits.
There is nobody in this industry you can trust. If sycophants of any flavour are your desire then bang on the desk until Eadon is given a forth-covered Pengiunskin soapbox and go read Ed Bott for a dose of truly singular Redmondian butt snorkling.
Me, I'll be as objective as I can and I"ll review any technology that crosses my path or interests me. My focus however, will always be on the SME. Someone has to, because our entire industry is focused on "being on message" where "being on message" means "captivating the enterprise buyer."
So try to understand my full meaning when I say that SME sysadmins are my fucking tribe and I will defend them to the bitter end. Even if all I can do in their defence is loose words upon the ether.
Re: TechNet Moaning
TESTING PATCHES IS NOT FUCKING DEVELOPMENT. IT IS A BASIC ELEMENT OF SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATION.
There is a fuck of a lot of difference between developing and systems administration. You can't do patch testing on the free versions for the reasons stated in the article. Microsoft has explicitly stated on more than one occasion that this is exactly what Technet is for. Only now has the story changed to reinterpret the licence so that they can retcon it's purpose and blame the victims for it's disappearance.
Anyone who does that is in my books a douchecanoe of the umpteenth order. Anyone who supports such a move is someone I will never have the vaguest shred of respect for.
"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.
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*
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.
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.
Yes. The staff would be in ribbons by the time I was done with them, were that to be introduced...
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!
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.
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.
Re: Allow me to reciprocate
I CONSUME THE LETTER R! ROAR!
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.
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."
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?
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.
"only to discover there-after that they came up short in scalability, flexibility, performance, security and lowered value (greater outlay) "
I'm the first to tear Microsoft a new one on pricing and licensing shenanigans, but "scalability, flexibility, performance and security" are all areas that you are going to have a hard time convincing me that Microsoft is not at par with - or is - the industry leader. This isn't the XP era. Microsoft are a legitimate player.
Re: What happened to Eadon??
It wasn't just "one" of my articles. Thought admittedly there was one article that was completely over the live and served as the "last straw." He was progressively getting more and more out of hand for months and this just...was the end. I "ignored" him months ago, but even with that his tripe was ultimately hijacking every thread.
Look, I don't have a problem with (most) criticism. You guys want to lay into me or my writing you go right ahead. But there have to be limits. There is a difference between disagreeing with an author and repeated, protracted ad homenim campaigns against an author.
If I disagree with someone often enough I can just ignore them; I think jake is a jackass so he's a great example of someone I just chose not to have to deal with. I have better things to do with my day then listen to his condescending bullshit. For all his arrogant tripe, however, jake knows exactly where the line is and he doesn't cross it.
Eadon, however, has moving way over the red line and trucking deep into the territory of "libel." He was warned - repeatedly - by the powers that be. Eventually they got fed up with his continual attacks on one of their writers (me) and zapped him.
I'm all for free speech. As an internet troll I am doubly cautious about the idea of "censorship from the powers that be" on websites. Gods know I've trolled Andrew O - and others - around here hard enough myself. There are limits to that speech, especially in privately owned fora. If this were Ars Technica he would have been banhammered months ago.
So while making commenttards into digital unpeople makes the troll in me nervous, I have to say that the powers that be showed a remarkable amount of restraint for a long time and that - quite frankly - the bastard had it coming. You can get away with a lot around here but when you start in with the repeated ad homenim attacks against the writers of the website don't be surprised if someone kicks you in the shins. Even if the writer is me.
Gods help the poor sod who goes after someone who's actually worthwhile around here.
"threats to the American Way of Life"
The American Way Of Life sucks rotting gorilla balls. Why the fuck would people want to actually defend a nation based on Animal Farm?
They were warnings, guys...not instruction manuals. America should give up trying to "defend it's way of life" and instead aspire to having a "way of life" as good as the many other nations that have since surpassed it.
Re: Please help a Canuck out here...
3 rooms? That's not a shed. That's a major secondary outbuilding.
Re: Please help a Canuck out here...
Well, I've a basement with ~10K worth of power tools, ~20K worth of computer gear and a 180gal fish tank that we've just recently finished renovating. My shed, OTOH, has garden tools in it. It's rather too small for anything else.
Re: Please help a Canuck out here...
...I have a lake lot...what wrong with that?
Re: Nothing to contribute-Will the winner please take a bow?
If you ask me, you're all a little bit aft.
Please help a Canuck out here...
It seems to me that Brits have a completely different use of the word "shed" than we do here. In Canada a shed is merely a storage unit. It is not additional living quarters. (We would generally call that an add-on.) Men in Canada use their garages as workspaces and hideouts, or a dedicated office/workspace/basement. Indeed, in Western Canada the basement is particularly commmon; hell, mine is 450 sq ft of whatever I want it to be.
So if "shed" in the UK has become synonymous with "man cave" (the North American equivalent), what would you name what we call a "shed?" (A place merely for storage and/or tools.)
Curious about the linguistic differences...
You can only DEFINE your "pet" server is all elements of the stack - from OS to app to config - comply with that concept. The reason many of us have "pet" servers in the first place is because we are utterly reliant on applications that don't lend themselves to that. In addition: changing applications is a long, tedious, expensive process that most businesses aren't going to undergo just because it advances Microsoft's strategic initiatives or helps one of the nerd pack get a little more sleep once a year.
I see no direct benefit to the SME and you have failed to articulate one.
Re: The end of telcos
"If the FCC relaxed the requirements on local number portability and broke the universal service requirement"
How are either of these good for the end user?
- Product round-up Six of the best gaming keyboard and mouse combos
- LinuxCon 2014 GitHub.io killed the distro star: Why are people so bored with the top Linux makers?
- Boffins attempt to prove the UNIVERSE IS JUST A HOLOGRAM
- China building SUPERSONIC SUBMARINE that travels in a BUBBLE
- Review Raspberry Pi B+: PHWOAR, get a load of those pins