2962 posts • joined Monday 31st May 2010 16:59 GMT
Re: Typical Microsoft
Apple's aim is negative carbon across the whole company. And plenty of storage vendors offer 100% uptime.
Again, you assume I am talking about datacenters there. Very "Microsoft today." Take your Azure and stuff it into your NSA-monitored by-the-minute-billed overpriced sack of shit, Redmondian.
I'll run my own stuff. Increasingly, however, that can't include Microsoft. Not stable enough and certainly not enough bang for the buck. Just Not Getting It. As ususal.
I can't disagree more. Nadella is the best choice. He doesn't need superpowers to fold in Nokia, just good VPs. He has always been a man who knows his limitations and who casts about for additional brains to overcome those limitations. Nadella would make a Microsoct that's responsive to it's customers. Not one that blackmails, threatens and dismisses them. He's not just what Microsoft needs...he's what the industry as a whole needs.
If it isn't Nadella, it is a slap in the face of their entire customer base. He's the only candidate who will deliver what people want to buy, not what Microsoft feels it can blackmail people into giving up more than they can afford for.
Re: Couldn't disagree more
Re: More moving the deckchairs
Lying to congress isn't a crime. Lying to a court under oath is.
"...governments should do what it says on the box; govern!"
The real power in America - the Tea Party - disagrees.
You mean the American company that wants us to store "secure" data on their American cloud?
Sell me the software to run on my own servers, away from American hands. Then we'll talk. "American" and "secure" are oxymorons.
Suave sysadmins don't stay sysadmins for long. They get a job that pays real money and doesn't come with life-altering stress, lack of appreciation and Microsoft's licensing department.
Re: Typical Microsoft
"Been low carbon for years" is not the same as "no carbon". That's like saying "Microsoft has made high uptime block storage servers for years." High uptime != 100% uptime, which is a hell of a difference to the company that's suffering an outage.
Actually, you make a good point, however, that describes Microsoft's views on the matter...and neatly ram home exactly how they Don't Get It in most things.
For all that VMware has it's rough spots, it's still damned amazing software.
....that and Hyper-V keeps randomly rebooting on me and blowing up at critical times...
As a general rule SDN is easier to manage than traditional networking. SDN interfaces are often modern, up-to-date GUI affairs that can be addressed via the command line or scripts, but also take into account the rest of the human race that are visual learners and/or only go modify the network a few times a year.
That doesn't cover all implementations, naturally, but in general SDN has been used as a chance to break free from the ios tyranny and open switching administration to those who excel at things other than rote memorization.
GPS *receives and processes* signals that are broadcast *by satellites*. A GPS emits no radio. It just crunches data on a time code.
How the metric fucking banana hell do you manage to turn passive crunching of omni-present signal data into a plea for pro-authoritarianism?
Christ on a bike, you lot are truly mad...
"The Internet" is low bandwidth, high latency. Datacenters are high bandwidth, low latency.
A fabric allows me to talk horizontally across a datacenter without bandwidth contention. Explain to me exactly how I accomplish that in a routed scenario without bottlenecking on the router. Or for that matter, how your very Cisco view of networking is going to be cheaper than a mesh fabric with dynamic layer-2 packet routing?
Re: I'll wait...
Problem is, Nutanix won't sell me software. They want to sell me the stack and that's bloody expensive. More capital than I have to hand. That makes Maxta interesting.
Re: Watch out FusionIO
Wow. You people don't think laterally. You turn Whiptail into a "like a FusionIO card" by making it one blade per chassis. That will then connect via the chassis' internal network infrastructure to the other blades in the chassis. The chassis-local Whiptail accelerates the local UCS nodes while also going using cross-chassis communication channels to make sure data is replicated in another blade in one of the other chassis.
This isn't fucking rocket science here.
It's also how you make the claim that "Whiptail isn't there to compete with EMC." It's not...at least not EMC's spinning disk stuff. EMC will provide you bulk storage that all your chassis will talk to. Whiptail will provide chassis-local acceleration and serve as a new tier of "fast storage".
Whiptail isn't a broadside at EMC, it's slitting Pernix Data's throat, along with it the margins that currently go to FusionIO, Micron or LSI in the form of their PCI-E cards.
That EMC wants to get into the same space is of no consequence. there are plenty of players.
Mark my words; Whiptail will evolve from a SAN into something closer to an acceleration tier. A hybrid, if you will, between Pernix and Tintri. Dangerous stuff...
Re: core components of the service, such as networking, remain critically unstable
Openstack doesn't have to be balls-to-the-wall fast and take advantage of every single feature or eek out every single % of performance. It needs to be "good enough". It needs to provide freedom from lockin and - most of all - a means to escape the "just one more license" fetish that companies like Microsoft have.
The "best" technology doesn't always win. Now go cuy in your betamax. I'm going to spin up a cloud whose software costs don't go up 15%+ per year.
Re: Still don't see any reasons to buy it @Bucky O'Hare
To be fair "runs fast, is well built and has Microsoft Office" fulfills most requirements that I have to deploy a field unit to my staff and most of my customers. All that's missing is:
1) Genuine "all day" batter life. (12 hours of RDP or 16 hours of Web).
2) A price point that is closer to $500 than $1000
Right now, if I am going to drop $1200+ on something it will be a Lenovo X230. Why? Because - while expensive - it can be equipped with an additional battery and an expanded internal one to meet the battery life requirements without giving up on the others.
So surface is close. If only they'd make the damned thing into a netbook form factor and replace Windows 8 with Windows 7...
Man, I'd love a notebook that well designed.
I know you're a tech god that doesn't even need to read an article before making completely misinformed comments...but YOU'RE AND YOUR. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR OWN INFLATED EGO.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Re: a f*#k 'em attitude?
"A f*#k 'em attitude" is pretty standard for most developers, as this forum thread would seem to obviate.
You are arguing a point I never made and trying to change the discussion past your original assertion, which it the point I was arguing to begin with.
You asserted that the fundamental platform of standards-based browser-delivered apps is inadequate. I said it is not.
You then went on a tangent about how "so many developers are producing native apps for mobile devices."
I said "but standards-based apps are still being developed that are just as good as those native apps and continue to be supported."
I am not talking about why developers choose to be egocentric assholes that place their needs above those of their customers. I merely said that standards-based development was possible, is the superior choice for the end users and that companies should avoid lock-in by moving their applications to said standards-based platforms.
It is possible to do. It is being done even by the very same companies you hold up as producing native mobile clients and ultimately helps companies escape lockin.
Your arguments have fucking nothing to do with "the fundamental suitability of the platform".
There are many reasons that people choose one design choice over another that have nothing to do with the platform capability. As I stated before, it's a lot more about the psychology of the matter than anything else. (And the lock-in political power games played by the platform owners specifically designed to prevent companies from building cross platform apps.)
Your arguments made a claim and backed it up with bloody nothing that was related to it.
Oh, and as for "be nice when I talk to you," here's a giggle: no.
You have no more right to dictate my behavior in a forum than you do dictating my purchasing decisions to suit your personal agenda. My irritating and flagranty douchily trolly behavior is purposeful and chosen specifically to illustrate my point. I'm the consumer. I get to do what I want. You're the vendor. Do what I say or I go elsewhere. I have no reason to listen to you; on the forum, as a vendor or anywhere else. You do not compel or have a reason to expect my obedience. If you want my compliance you fucking earn it.
In fact, I have a better idea: why don't you stop wasting time on internet forums and go put some effort into actually developing things that are good for your customers and meet their needs without imposing externalities upon them. (In this case, in the form of locking them into closed platforms where the costs constantly ratchet upwards.)
I'm exactly as nice as the situation warrants. Address your actual assertion - rather than arguing past it with irrelevant dogma - and we'll be fine. If you want to argue the politics of platform selection, then start a new thread. Your assertion was about the fundamental capability. That's to do with tech, and you've provided zero evidence that the technology behind standards-based application development is lacking.
If you honestly think that the fundamental capabilities of the platform to deliver a smooth and fast experience aren't there for standards-based platforms then you haven't been paying attention for some time.
I will agree with you 100% if you are trying to limit yourself to the top-end applications requiring breaking performance. But I will disagree vehemently about the other 99.99999% of applications. Even on a moderns smartphone. For the overwhelming majority of apps, web-based is more than fast enough and has been for some time.
The fact that existing web developers don't know how to use the functionality enabling acceleration is more a function of shitty developers than "the fundamental capabilities of the platform."
AS to you "but it's *hard* to code for the differences in multiple browsers" whinge; Bullshit. I flat out don't buy it. It's far harder to recode native apps for every platform. The only way that native apps are easier than standards-based apps is if you are telling a goodly chunk of the user population to eat shit because you're lazy and you get to dictate which native platform they use. That's not actually solving the problem, that's just the developer being a dickwad.
And then you finish off by saying "well, except Google seem to have solved all of this." Which sort of makes your entire rant about "the fundamental capabilities of the platform" a steaming sack of horseshit, doesn't it?
Standards-based development in browsers is a fine platform for 99.9%+ of non-video-game applications out there. (There it's probably only about 80% ready.) Everything else has nothing to do with the fundamental capabilities of the platform and everything to do with whiny, arrogant developers who feel that the end user should bent to suit them instead of providing applications that suit the end user.
I have zero sympathy for any developer who just wants to be able to use the objective-C skills they've honed for years. They're the ones selling a product. I'll not buy it unless it's what I want.
Re: We don't care how the data gets there, only that it does get there
When your car breaks down, you take it to the mechanic. If you have enough cars in your fleet you might employ a full time mechanic. Should you employ a full-time mechanic if you have only one car? Two? Ten?
The network admin is never going to go away. The number of them required, however, will diminish.
Well, if so, that's one example amongst literally thousands of others who choose standards-compliant means to reaching multiple platforms over native apps. Facebook has the resources to write multiple apps for multiple platforms and maintain umpteen separate code bases. Most don't.
Of course, if one is a True Believer in native apps (like you seem to be) then "multiple separate code bases" isn't a problem. You just tell your users to use whatever you dictate and believe that they'll meekly comply.
Frankly, I don't put developers on such a pedestal. They're disposable. They comply with my demands as a customer or they fuck the hell off. It isn't my job to alter my business model, OS selection or device selection to meet the desires of some jumped-up code monkey. It's the code monkey's job to write what I want for the platform I want if they want to get paid.
If you're Facebook you can do that with native apps (apparently) and fuck the inefficiencies of the process. Very - very - few others can afford that.
But...wait...what's this? Can it be?!?
Facebook's primary offering is a web application using standards after all! They merely have peripheral applications that may (or may not, depending on your view) provide a subjectively "better" experience on different form factors that are coded natively.
Even the enormous behemoth that you rip up as your example of native appness still seems to believe that providing it's wares primarily through a cross-platform, standards-compliant application delivery mechanism is critical to their business. Whodathunkit?
Users are used to the "native app" style of presentation; I.E. that it has it's own dedicated window, does not appear to be in a browser, etc. This is psychology and sophistry not technological requirement.
The difference between this and a true "native app", however, is that this development is still a standards-compliant development that is portable between systems. In fact, it typically calls the native system renderer and expects it "just work" with the relevant standards.
Psychologically, users are trained to think of "native apps" as "real apps". So you have to present them as such. Realistically, however, you code them using open standards and you use internetworked APIs to communicate information. The days of truly native apps that are coded to be platform specific are coming to a close.
No, actually, it says lots about how many shitty coders there are out there. I can name you hundreds of fantastically coded browser-based apps. I can also point you at millions of terribly coded native apps.
You seem willing to over look this massive quantity of awful native apps while using a comparatively similar quantity of awful browser apps as a cudgel. All you're doing is demonstrating your own bias and inability to make side-by-side comparisons in an objective manner.
Shitty developers are everywhere.
Browsers have a lot of limitations that would be perfectly good targets. Limitations that native apps (normally) don't have. (Though those are disappearing.) "There are bad apps for them" isn't one of them.
Browsers do, however, have one massive advantage over native apps: a single set of universal standards to code to. It was what Java was supposed to be, be never was. Sure, there are some differences and some accommodation for browser quirks required, but far less than Java...and way less than recompiling your native app with proprietary APIs.
Standards-based browser-apps are inclusive; they are open to almost everyone on all devices, all platforms. Native apps are exclusive: they target only that which the developer feels is important.
A browser based app is the developer saying "I am here to meet your needs; I will work to help your business grow by adapting my application to how you work." Native apps are the developer saying "I know better than you; if you want to use my software you'll do things exactly how I say, in the environment I say you'll do them in."
Of course, all of it - browser or native - relies on your developers not being terrible. But the fundementals of the medium are solid. Have been for some time.
@Should b Working
"Surface Pro 2 called"
Then ran out of batteries. Shortly thereafter is was recharged briefly before being flung out a window because it treats desktop apps - and the majority of users - like third-class citizens.
You could install a lot of applications on the Surface Pro 2...but why would you? The mouse is a third-class input method, the OS feels like dyslexic finger painting and the battery is still shit.
Put the money into getting your apps ported to open standards and run 'em as web apps on the many available platforms that don't suck*. Windows 7, ChromeOS, Android, iOS, Bada or Tizen...just to name a few!
*Bonus points; by making your apps browse-based, they still work in OSes that suck, like Windows 8 and Windows RT.
@Bucky O' Hare
If you read The Register you'll know I don't speak nice about anyone unless it's true...but Tim isn't For Sale. I'll not say I agree with the man in all his works, but he's honorable and believes what he writes.
Besides, if you're a fan of Microsoft's paint-by-numbers OS (and Tim is) then the Surface 2 is a wonderful little machine. Had a chance to give one a quick poke and it looks to be nearly as well crafted as my Asus Transformer!
So really then, it's a question of "do you want Windows 8 or Windows RT with that?" If you don't, well, there's lots of other options. If you do...Microsoft seem to be offering a good machine.
Nothing paid-for about that.
I managed to get Pistoncloud set up in about 2 hours. Azure on-premises takes an average of 2 days. So fuck your assertion with a mottled goat.
Oh, or were you trying to compare using the unbelievably expensive NSA backdoored Azure U.S.A. public version to a local, secure, minimal-margin-to-another-vendor Openstack install?
Please, do elaborate.
Lots of competition here.
VMware has a vSAN...sort of. it's nice to see they finally got AHCI support added in, (you know, because it's really not all that important and blame the user if they don't buy according to the HCL. Or you know, can't afford to buy according to the HCL. Or happen to think that bog standard industry interfaces that are built into fucking everything should be supported. Little things.) Despite this, the attitude presented to the hoi polloi by those in charge has left me with the square root of negative zero warm fuzzies on their ability to give bent fucks about "things used by companies that aren't the top 20%". At the moment, I'm really not predicting a huge uptake. By the time VMware pull their finger out, they'll be fighting an uphill battle against entrenched players, even with their "built in market" of ESXi license holders.
HP has Lefhand, and Lefthand is good. Unfortunately, it's priced out of the SMB space and there is a general feeling of neglect to the product. Few announcements, little rah-rah and less discussion of uptake. That sucks, because it's actually quite awesome.
Nutanix and Simplivity can simply choose tomorrow to turn their offerings into software-only vSANs as well. Nutnaix has a massively evangelical user base, many of the top minds in the field and an established presence around the world. They are full steam ahead, support multiple hypervisors and show no signs of slowing down.
Simplivity have focused on their backup and dedup tech. They view themselves less as a private cloud enabler and more as a storage play. They've got good tech, great people and a fighting chance amongst the morass.
Whichever of these companies you feel is likely to win - and for whatever reason - the addition of Maxta to the mix can only be excellent for end users. More choice, more competition, more pressure to innovate, differentiate, diversify and push the boundaries of software defined storage.
About goddamned time.
Azure hosted? Me likey.
Azure service provider (where the service provider is subject only to my nation's laws)? Grand.
Azure U.S.A? Hell no.
No amount of "but you can manage your own keys, see? See?!?" I ever going to make me trust the yanks. Nothing short of some pretty massive government reforms will even begin to restore my trust.
Too bad that Microsoft has decided that they'll market Azure service provider while simultaneously raising fees to punitive levels in an attempt to drive those selfsame service providers out of business. The end result is me not really trusting Microsoft at all.
Oh well: Openstack is largely Good Enough. Onwards.
I truly wish I was allowed to use Sie/Hir or Ser. Unfortunately, we'd be back in the same boat; it's so uncommon, the usage of it would detract from the story.
I have started to use Sie in some of my personal stuff.
I think you have a problem with your brain being missing. But thanks nonetheless!
I prefer to use gender non-determinative pronouns so that I can both acknowledge and dismiss 100% humanity. I don't give a flying Vista what gender, race, creed, religion or whatever "group" you are: you're all clownshoes to me until proven otherwise.
When talking about an indeterminate person I don't feel it's appropriate to use "his" or "hers." Gender determinate pronouns should only be used when a gender is known. Period.
That's like saying "he drove* from A to B."
*method of transportation not known, using a manually controlled vehicle as the descriptor "just because."
Re: Stop making me think about sex. It's irrelevant.
You're not allowed to use "their." That is something that the patriarchy uses to pretend women don't exist whilst simultaneously attempting to appear unbiased. A bunch of feminists decided that they didn't like it so they set upon a campaign to convince the world that using the plural form of pronouns was abuse of grammar - not to mention demonstrating "gender bias" - so they decided that everyone should default to the feminine pronouns instead.
In case you missed the memo this is huge in US journalism right now, and it has become "the thing" in SF tech circles as well.
Re: about God: She's black
She's black what? A poodle? A paramecium? Black hole? You're still being an "-ist" if you assume God is human/humanoid/human-like/human-aligned at all.
Of course, there's the part where God doesn't exist, but let's just set that to one side for now...
The Ballmer Peak theory of alcohol consumption applies.
a) you have no idea
b) why thank you!
c) trolling is stress relief
d) I have to be somewhat clean about the ranting. I work here and all...
d) (there are two ds?) Glad to see someone is right around here
e) the wife agrees
f) I prefer it in reverse order; social inhibition removal enhances the fun!
@AC re: $100/seat
Most companies hate their customers, it seems. I'll never understand it. But I will fight it.
I personally think that $100/install/year is the "sweet spot" pricing. It generates more than enough revenue to continue support - even to generate quite a bit of profit - and doesn't feel overly onerous, even to the smallest of SMB customers.
Truth be told, you might be able to jack that up to $200 a year, if you were willing to write up goodwill for individuals and SMBs (maybe create a sliding scale?) and thus get even more profit. I don't think that's out there for either Microsoft or the customer.
The key is that you need zero minimum numbers to receive this ongoing support, and it can't have the costs ratchet skyward with each passing year. Also note that I think Red Hat should be forced to offer the same support options for RHEL. Indeed, my opinion on this is nuanced; I don't think that an OS company should be forced to support a product indefinately when there is only one user remaining.
I believe that the support horizon should be determined as a function of peak userbase. If 25% of your peak users for that product version are still using it, you must provide a support option. I'd say that should go down as low as 5% of peak users. I consider it a matter of customer protection, and I think it should apply to all developers of critical software, not simply operating system vendors.
By law they should have two options: offer support for a reasonable fee until the userbase drops below 5% of peak or lenience the source code out to a third party who will provide that support. The third party may be held to massively restrictive NDAs not allowing them to share code, etc.
Regarding the other topic: The Kingston SSDs have been in a RAID 5 of 8 SSDs since the article was published. It has been the primary iSCSI storage for my testlab. I hammer the ever living begeezus out of it all day, every day. Not one SSD is has even used 10% of it's lifespan yet, and they are working like tanks. Still delivering over 10Gbits/sec of throughput to my VMware cluster. What more can I ask?
I'm not sure why Microsoft would bother paying a deep web troll either. That said, the access patterns, message resonance with Microsoft's official marketing slides and entry-level textbook social media techniques in play make my spidy senses tingle.
Remember; this sort of deep web monitoring and engaging (though not remotely so ineptly) is one of the things that my company does. We tend more to focus on opinion aggregation and actual community engagement rather than marketing message core dumps, but you get to meet others in the industry when you do it. (Or rather, Josh does it. I mostly meet people and then run the hell away. Social media types give me the shivers.)
Let's look at the paid Microsoft shill's statement that is the focus for my rage:
Over a few years an upgrade to Windows 7 or Windows 8 will save most organisations money compared to supporting a legacy infrastructure - from the lower TCO - including fewer security vulnerabilities, better performance, greater reliability, better power saving, etc. etc.
This is pure horseshit. While the above is true in certain circumstance - and I'd be glad to write you chapter on verse on all of that if you want to kindly drop a few dozen bills in my bank account - the reality is that it simply isn't true for the majority of businesses. (Though parts of it may be true for most businesses.)
It is the absoluteness of the statement - oh so very on message - that removes the ability to have a rational discussion about this. A discussion about why one should upgrade needs to start with individual analyses of the environments and the factors holding back upgrades. Those need then be analyzed one at a time and addressed - or not - as needs and abilities dictate.
It's textbook marketing, however. Lifted damned near verbatim from some slides I have on a USB stick upstairs, emblazoned with Microsoft's logo. The thing is, the application of such in a deep web marketing scenario typically isn't so...
The idea behind doing this sort of stuff is to engage with the individuals that are off message, draw out the reasons for their recalcitrance and then (referring to your trusty message-of-the-day handbook) meet the concerns one at a time by providing solid rebuttals backed by evidence. The marketing theory behind this class of engagement is that by demonstrating that even the most recalcitrant of individuals' issues can be dealt with in a reasonable fashion your efforts are amplified amongst the community you are working with.
Oh, and you also typically identify yourself as working on behalf of the company in question. Works fucking wonders for companies within the Spiceworks, Zenoss and Puppet communities, as well as the absolutely stellar Twitter social media teams that I've worked with. (Note: Microsoft's Twitter teams are awful because they aren't authorized to actually help you.)
The horrific ineptitude is why I am willing to believe that this AC is indeed a paid Microsoft Deep Web FUD coward. Because Microsoft is historically unbelievably terrible at social media and community engagement of all kinds.
If you want community engagement that Just Fucking Works look at companies like Veeam, Simplivity, Nuntanix and - increasingly - Symantec. Matt Stephenson (@packmatt73) is truly godlike with regards to community engagement and he is really helping Symantec reform how it's helping customers.
There's the key, however: helping customers. When you engage a proper deep web nerd - Josh from my company, eGeek, or Matt from Symantec, Rick Vanover from Veeam, JMT from VMware, Gabe Chapman from Simplivity or so on - they use channels like Twitter, Spiceworks or even The Register's forums to find out what needs to be done to meet that customer's needs, then get the right people joined up to make that happen.
Does it shock me at all that Microsoft would put a body into place that goes through the motions, but has no authority to help the customer and can only repeat pre-canned statements from heavily vetted slides? No. Call their support. Talk to their Twitter guys. Interact with their PR staff. Deal with Microsoft in any official or semi-official capacity when you are less than a 2500-seat enterprise customer and this is exactly what you get.
So would Microsoft waste money on a meat sack to "social media" EL Reg's forums? Fuck yes. And that meat sack would behave exactly like the one that's been plaguing us for the past few months.
Microsoft is corporately incapable of fielding a body that behaves in any other way...but they'd try really, really hard because everyone else is doing it. Then they'll abandon it after three structuring attempts because they simply can't understand why it works for others but not them.
Re: It's 6:15am PST
There are lots of people seeking to praise MS in different and increasingly inaccurate ways as well. Or slag odd Android, Apple, and my tea kettle, too.
I think there's plenty of space for actual, coherent discussion on the topic, but only if we all put away our brand tribalism. Sadly, it seems increasingly few individuals are so inclined. Microsoft is so bloody polarizing because they both make fantastic technology and fuck up the delivery, licensing and support of said technology to a degree managed by few companies still in existence.
To hings your view of a company on any one thing - "The tech is good" or "the delivery is poor" - is to focus on one tree at the expense of the wider ecosytem. It is the man claiming loudly and resoundingly that he has/has not seen a change in his local weather patterns thus climate change must/must not be true.
To have a conversation about such things requires the ability to objectively analyze the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not only as they apply to you and yours, but to others as well. It also requires the ability to put things into perspective. How many companies, users, dollars, etc is represented by you and yours? How does that market segment change when you look at different countries or regions? How does the local culture affect buying patterns, acceptance of change or even the ability to obtain the financial resources necessary to deal with upgrades in a Microsoft-friendly manner?
What industries are the various people in? Are the magic wants of internet black-and-white thinking going to apply? Can that person/company/etc even upgrade? Why? Why not? Where are the sticking points and how can things be addressed? Should they be addressed?
None of this lends itself well to sound bites. None of it fits in a tweet. Certainly none of this is something that can be broken down into emotive - and emotional - outbursts, generalizations or packets of "me, thus you!"
I also warn of the dangers of proclaiming "they disagree with me, thus they are ignorant of IT in general!" For it is entirely possible - and any professional, rational being would take the moment to consider - that they know some things that you do not. (Or that their circumstances are different from your own.)
In some cases it is indeed ignorance that clouds the discussion. In far too many, however, it is ignorance of the factors that are critical to businesses that are beyond IT itself.
Just because - or someone else - believes they can craft the perfect network for someone over the internet by edict or fiat doesn't mean you have the foggiest clue in the most secret of fnords what you're on about.
And that - right there - is one of the most devilishly complex and painfully overlooked Hard Truths of our industry.
Re: It's 6:15am PST
You are wrong. I never said "how dare they not support 12 year old software." I said "how dare they not offer us the ability to pay a reasonable price for ongoing support" or, barring that "how dare they not license the source code to a third party who will provide ongoing support for a reasonable price?"
I never once asked that Microsoft continue to support XP for free ad aeternum. Nor have I said "I hate Windows 7." I believe I said "Windows 7* needs an up arrow on Windows Explorer" but that is easily fixed with Classic Shell." I definitely said "fuck Microsoft's bullshit VDI licensing that is trying to make individuals and SMBs bankrupt", but that has nothing to do with Windows 7 (or even 8) and everything to do with Microsoft's despotic licensing department.
Please get your facts straight before attacking someone. Cheers.
*But Windows 8 can indeed get bent.
It's 6:15am PST
Factoring in time to get coffee...call it 3 hours before an Anonymous Coward is in this thread to spread FUD and lie to us outright?
Microsoft! It's great! And so's the marketing message! They treat their customers just fine and in no way hiked up all the fees to the point of bankruptcy to screw their customers! I love them, yes I do! Oooh, er, missus...
Hey, can I have a cushy job FUDing forums for MS now too?
Re: Brisk pace? Or merely a pretty face?
Somehow, my friend, I doubt an A/C mask would suffice to discuss that topic in the open. You know how it is. (Though you've my e-mail if you like.)
The noodlier thing though is that I have to question you emergent hyperhuman hypothesis. I don't believe it's possible without a truly massive metamorphic change. Genetic shift of the "that's no longer one of us" variety. That becomes a debate of Punctuated Evolution. Are we indeed tuned in to Darwin's Radio, or is it a gradual process, small mutation by each?
Put bluntly, I do not believe that a hominid of our design with roughly our cranial capacity is capable of being a modern Leonardo. No matter how you arrange the internal physics to maximize neuron density, there simply isn't enough physical space in there to provide the data storage and processing requirements to be Leonardo.
Baring a fluke of evolution we're not going to see some ubermensch crawl forth from the genetic underbrush and lead us all into Jobsian salvation. I'm also not seeing the singularity approaching with any real alacrity, so the One True Wikian seems to be a stalled path as well.
I'd love to delve further, but that requires blitting from the back buffers. A side channel will have to do.
Re: Embrace the inner Trekkie
LCARS doesn't use space efficiently and - frankly - seems to have a lot of buttons that do fuck all. Why would I want that?
Re: Are you feeling lucky, punk?
A) I entirely agree it should be in place for all vendors.
B)The threshold for legal support should be "a given % of remaining active users as compared to peak usage."
C)I see it as a natural extension of laws in many countries requiring guarantees or guarantees of support combined with laws that ensure third parties are allowed to manufacture parts for cars and other such equipment.
To put it more bluntly: if a company (Microsoft) isn't willing to provide support for a product when a significant % of peak users are still using that product then a third party should be allowed to obtain the source code and maintain it under license. It is no different in my mind than saying a third party can manufacture brake pads and shoes for your car (thus extending support beyond that which the manufacturer would provide on their own with no laws or competitive forcings.)
Microsoft is the subject of immediate discussion. Do not make the mistake of assuming I feel they should be uniquely beholden to these principles.
Of course, of you're one of those rabid Tea Party types that is viciously opposed to consumer protection laws, you'll be violently against such things and the conversation can go nowhere but horrible from here.
@AC Re: @MS deep web social media shill
Great riposte. Respond to the hard questions with ad hominem. I should thusly consider your opinions valid why?
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Storagebod Oh no, RBS has gone titsup again... but is it JUST BAD LUCK?