* Posts by Trevor_Pott

6991 publicly visible posts • joined 31 May 2010

Bloodthirsty Apple fanbois TEAR OPEN new Macbook, bare its guts to world+dog

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: We know The Register hates everything about Apple

The difference is that you don't "discuss" and "poke fun at" J.H. You attack him.

I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion about my potential biases, and I'll even discuss them in my articles, with as much humour as I can muster. But attack me, and I'll punch you in the gonads. I fully expect any other writer to take a similar stance. Keep on attacking J.H. over and over in the comments and you might just get a rise. If it were me, I'd put little things into my articles just to get a rise out of such an individual.

We're reporters, not saints.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: We know The Register hates everything about Apple

Sorry Trevor, I disagree with you.

You have that right. That said, I am also a reader of El Reg, and I read Jasper's articles along with almost everyone else's. I emphatically and completely do not buy that J.H. is biased against Apple. Instead, I feel that it is you who have a dangerous emotional attachment to Apple that is influencing your ability to perceive a combination of critical thinking and snark as bias.

To address your complaints directly:

My wife didn't buy a Macbook Pro beacause it didn't have a DVD drive. She said "that's fine on a netbook, but for my primary machine I need one." She bought a Lenovo.

Poking at Apple for having the top end so ridiculously expensive is absolutely legitimate. PC manufacturers have - for the most part - be forced by competition (thanks, Lenovo!) not to charge $virgins for a step up in RAM/screen/etc. And a lot of similar-classed PCs are still upgradable, meaning you can do exactly what I do: pick up a system with 2 or 4GB of manufacturer-provided RAM and up it to 32GB by nipping down to the corner store and getting SO-DIMMs for a bent copper. (Though I am getting sick of having to remove the keyboard to get the second DIMM in...)

As for "why didn't he mention it had an SSD", that would be because it's 2014. Nobody fucking uses spinning rust anymore. Again: buy your Lenovo with the el-cheap-o built-in rust, pop down to the corner store and slam in a 1TB unit. Hell, I managed to get a 480gb mSATA and a 1TB PCI-E into my 11" Lenovo X230. AND 32GB of RAM and it's nowhere near $2000, let alone 2000 pounds.

So yeah, you know what, I think you've got your knickers in a bunch over nothing. The man has some valid points and you are having a wobble over the fact that he raised them.

Cope.

You bring up Sony VIAOs when comparing to Apple on price, and they're a damned good comparison. They're outrageously expensive...so much so that they were a boat anchor Sony had to get rid of because of how much the market simply didn't want them.

Who does do well? Lenovo. Because they make great computers that people actually want and they do so for cheap. These range from the unupgradable to the ultimately upgradable. They have a little bit of everything. As the dominant PC vendor - not to mention the one who is making the most profit - it makes much more sense to compare Apple to them than it does some shattered has-been that is gasping it's last breath.

That said, it would make perfect sense - and be perfectly legitimate - to say "Apple is expensive, like a Sony Viao - in the article. It's just not necessary.

If J.H. were picking apart Alienware, Sony or so forth for the same things, would you be getting all uppity because he didn't include a cross comparison of every other vendor? I suspect you'd consider them fair game, because it isn't an "attack" on your beloved Apple.

So yeah, J.H. is having some fun at Apple's expense...but he raises valid points and does give us info about a new product.

You, OTOH, decide that you need to personally attack him rather than simply choosing to look at the headline and go "oh, I don't like that guy because he says things that make me angry" and simply not reading those articles. I have a list of authors at various news outlets I avoid, and I manage to do so* despite pretty severe adult ADHD which results in my having virtually no impulse control. You have no excuse.

And really, that's what it boils down to here. The argument could be made that J.H. could have phrased his articles in such a way as to avoid hurting the feelers of the faithful...but it can just as easily be made that the faithful need a sharp spike in the feelers every now and again. (And I say that applies to those who put their faith in any vendor or product!)

If you actually engaged with him as a human being, I think you'd find he doesn't have an anti-Apple chip on his shoulder. He respects them for what they are, and couldn't actually care less what other people buy. He simply reflects some of the things that the demonstrable majority of people care about, even if you, personally, don't.

That you agree with Apple's choices doesn't make anyone who doesn't biased.

*I avoid authors who consistently and willfully ignore science in favour of pushing pesudoscience that fits their political agenda, no matter how completely fucking wrong that pesudoscience is, how out of context they have to take any real science, or how much data they have to ignore to make things fit into their views. I won't give them the page views.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: We know The Register hates everything about Apple

While he sometimes reports on rumour - and frankly, with Apple that's about all there is to report on - I don't see anything particularly biased about his writing. He isn't gushing with praise, but he doesn't go out of his way to beat them down, either. He's skeptical and doesn't give Apple the benefit of the doubt...but nor does he for anyone else.

I'm the same way, so I don't really see the problem...unless, of course, you've got a massive emotional investment in Apple combined with a weird need to have everyone else love the things you love. If, however, that's the case, you probably need some professional help. *shrug* It's just stuff man. And Apple's just a company.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: We know The Register hates everything about Apple

"We know The Register hates everything about Apple "

News to me. I rather like Apple Macs, though I am less a fan of the mobile stuff. One day, I hope to be able to afford Macs.

Tor attack nodes RIPPED MASKS off users for 6 MONTHS

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: No ACs Allowed

@LucreLout I very carefully gave no information in my comment that could not be found on Wikipedia. What's the NSA going to do, monitor every single person on Earth with a high enough IQ to do hard science? And why would they?

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: No ACs Allowed

"The problem isn't achievening critical mass, but that of one retaining supercritical mass.

This is accomplished by-------, with _____________ with a secondary method of ************.

Do you *honestly* desire that blanked information being available for one and all?"

Yep. Absolutely. You see, nuclear weapons aren't a threat. Mostly because the number of people crazy enough to use them are vanishingly small and secondly because we (generally) take care to make sure that getting hold of fissionables (required for all current practical designs) are virtually impossible to get hold of*.

OTOH, if we know what materials are used for the various designs - and remember that even the stuff in the Teller-Ulam design is largely speculative - we can put the entire world's best and brightest towards finding ways to detect nuclear weapons in an inactive state, before they go off.

Let's look at the Teller-Ulam design for a second. It supposedly uses a small implosion device (U235 on the physically large ones, plutonium on more modern miniaturized ones), to turn the polystyrene into a plasma. That plasma is basically supposed to compress a secondary implosion device, but this one has fusion catalysts (Lithium 6, Deuterium, etc) which then make bada-big-boom.

Everyone knows to hide your fissionables, your tampers, and even your fusion materials (assuming you aren't making those in house). How many people know exactly what flavour of polystyrene foam actually produces enough plasma pressure to set the fusion device off?

Could we build a device that tracks the chemical signature of those compounds? What range would they have? How rare are they in industrial use and could we use Big Data techniques to look for odd accumulation of those materials where they shouldn't be? For that matter, what would happen if you threw Google at the problem of determining which other foams could be used to achieve the same results and started looking for ways to find those?

And Teller-Ulam is ancient! $deity knows what modern designs look like, or what innovative ways we could find to detect them, or the components used in their creation.

Any idiot can build a gun-type nuke. (Though why you would, as a terrorist, is beyond me. If you're that fucked up, just build a dirty bomb. It's way easier.) A good physicist could probably fill in the gaps on what's publicly available for a Teller-Ulam design and make a basic fusion bomb. I don't see us getting wiped out left right and center.

Eventually, the secrets for post Teller-Ulam designs will leak, and/or the final pieces required to build a Teller-Ulam weapon without requiring some brainpower will get out to the crazies. You can't keep secrets like that forever.

I, for one, would rather that we had all of humanity working on how to detect the damned things before they go off rather than praying that security through obscurity will save us until we die of old age.

And that's before we start facing reality on pure fusion weapons. Dear gods man, we're about 10 years away from being able to miniaturize superconductors enough that it would be possible to build a beam-target/inertial confinement hybrid device about the size of a semi truck that would make it through any radiation scanner you care to name.

Before you laugh and say neither beam-target or ICF has yet to produce a sustainable reaction, remember that they are trying to create very small reactions and sustain them over time. For bada-big-boom all you need is one large reaction that lasts nanoseconds. And Large reactions have never been the problem. (Give me a hohlraum large enough and I can blow up the world!)

And what about beam-beam fusion, hmm? Build a target with just enough containment to hold a few kilos of fusion-target plasma relatively loosely, build a couple of linear accelerators (or hybrids, if you have the space and the know-how), load them into semis, back them up and point them at the ball of semi-contained plasma...

Look, bada-big-boom is easy. Getting the materials is hard. Building the thing without being noticed is hard. Getting it from construction site to target - and remember, on the ground is nowhere near as useful as 300m in the air...you want that plasma shockwave, it's what does the damage - is not only hard, it's damned near impossible.

The knowledge is out there already, if you are willing to pay enough, or are smart enough. So let's not hide the "how". Let's make the "how" known and focus on detection and prevention. Yes, it's more costly than "security through obscurity". You actually have to give a bent fuck about things like "tracking fissionable". But it's a hell of a lot less likely to end in a horrible news report played out to a terrified world saying some city was wiped out because we thought our secrets were secure when they damned well weren't.

If the NSA can't keep Snowden out of the cookie jar then how the hell is it reasonable to assume that every nuclear country out there has managed to keep it all secret? North Korea got the bomb, so did China, Pakistan, India, Israel, Iran...and in the case of some of those places they've done more than simply re-use someone else's design. They've improved upon it.

So, I ask you, do you still want to keep everything secret? Really? And why do you trust those who guard those secrets - or try to detect the results of those secrets - more than the collective knowledge of all the white hats out there?

I'm legitimately curious as to your rationale, because if I can come up with a few feasible ways to make bada-big-boom - and I don't have an education to speak of - imagine what a proper nerd could do. That's really what it keeps coming back to, for me at least.

*Yes, I know about the US leaving nukes strapped to a plane unobserved on a military base, but you aren't going to waltz out of a military base with a nuke on the back of your truck, and if you tried to pull the core, you'd be dead in a matter of hours.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: No ACs Allowed

What do you have to fear if we have the ability to hide?

VMware builds product executables on 50 Mac Minis

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: sounds absolutely stupid

Exactly. This is why MSPs can deploy commodity hardware, but SMBs alone shouldn't. An MSP can afford the R&D, qualification, prototyping and validation because they're doing it over a whole stable of SMBs. The cost of all that is shared amongst the group.

"It depends".

Welcome to IT, eh?

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: sounds absolutely stupid

"At what point does 50 commodity boxes become more effective than one monolithic RAIDed, multiply redundant hunk of a machine."

3 nodes. 3 commodity nodes are the equivalent of one high end engineered server. Two in HA, and one on the shelf. (Because you don't get 4 hour with commodity.) Now, that doesn't mean "3 commodity to every enterprise server." That's the entry level to begin making sense of the equation. The actual algorithm is

3 + 1.25N commodity nodes are equivalent to N high end enterprise nodes.

This factors in failure rates, the fact that commodity nodes don't keep the same motherboards in production for as long as enterprise nodes, etc.

Now, Supermicro changes the calculations some. They offer 7-year support on some of their boards. This means that the algorithm becomes

3 + 1.1N Supermicro 7 year support nodes are equivalent to N high end enterprise nodes.

My entire career has been about determining the maths on this. Factoring in hundreds of variables. Testing, retesting and doing it all over again. I have cooperated with hundreds of systems administrators around the world to figure out failure rates, which vendors to avoid, which models to avoid, and more. The hard work of making commodity as reliable as enterprise with a fraction the cost.

Now, thanks to Facebook, Google and others that long effort is coming to a close. The Opencompute initiative is functionally industrializing my life's work, after having proven it at a scale I never could have dreamed of. (My biggest was 15,000 nodes in a single datacenter.)

But yes, there is logic underpinning this "commodity madness", even if many of those whose paycheques depend on "enterprise vendors uber alles" will never understand it..

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: sounds absolutely stupid

I suspect that's exactly the point. They have to dev and test for Macs. You can buy VMware's ESXi and install it on any x86 compatible system. If you do so on a Mac, you can buy additional licenses of OSX and run them in virtualised environments. (Note: Apple does not license you to do this on non-Mac systems.)

This is a tested - and IIRC, supported - environment. It stands to reason that somewhere in VMware there exists a production cluster in which running various versions of ESXi and Fusion occur. They probably also have slowly enlarged the cluster to run other Dev and Test workloads on this cluster, for the "simple to get an identical node" reasons that William listed.

I have a customer about to light up an ESXi Mac Pro cluster. I expect to see more and more as customers turn away from Microsoft. For various reasons, getting money for Mac Pros to run a dev and test cluster (outside of one or two specifically for compatibility testing) is highly unlikely. But a Mac Mini probably just squeaks under the radar of "petty cash."

One small Mac Mini cluster becomes two. Two become a larger cluster. Soon you have 50 of the things running legitimate Dev and Test workloads for reasons as much political as practical. It's very human. And hey...they probably get the job done just fine.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

“In what other situation can you have an entire spare server on hand for $1200?”

I can think of one.

Recording lawsuit targets Ford, GM in-car CD recorders

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

No, the companies that the AARC represent theoretically represent artists. (If you believe that a for-profit organization can and will do such a thing in a fair and honourable manner.)

The AARC represents companies which claim to represent artists. Totally different thing.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Trade Unions represent workers, which are human beings.

AARC represent soulless corporations which are not people.

There is a world of difference.

You, Verizon. What's with the download throttle? Explain yourself – FCC boss

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

No, they really don't. I can introduce you to at least 15. They currently reside in long-term mental heath care facilities. That said, there are lots and lots and lots of people with the same basic conditions who are "functional" and who walk around doing their jobs in everyday life. Many of them gravitate towards positions of power. Doctors, lawyers, politicians.

My family is filled with shrinks. if you honestly believe that "Even the most heinous, self-serving individuals want to be loved, deep down" then let's you and I sit down and have a few beers one day. I'll tell you some of the stories I grew up with of some of the world's most disturbed individuals. And then I'll introduce you to teams at three universities who were on the verge of being able to identify the genes responsible for predisposition towards most of those conditions, but which were stopped by ethics boards.

You see, because so many individuals absolutely do walk around with this issues but are "functional members of society" there is a lot of ethical debate about funding research that could potentially prejudice people who don't have those specific traits against those who do.

I can even introduce you to someone who put 4 years towards a doctorate based on that, only to have to shift (and add three more years) because of this issue. (She got way too close to actually nailing it.)

So no, there are many people who - deep down - don't give a bent fuck about being loved at all. But they do like power, and they need control. And bags and bags of money buys them almost enough of each to sate them.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

If they change the T&Cs then everyone who wanted would have a reason to break contract and flee to T-mob.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

I don't buy that. Why? He has no need to "talk tough". He isn't elected. He has no mandate or requirement to get public buy in. He is a tin pot dictator in charge of his own little world with a limited timespan on the throne and he knows it. He won't be in power long enough to give a bent hoo-rah what anyone except He Who Appoints Chairmen thinks.

The only thing that matters to Wheeler is that after he's strutted his hour upon the stage he has a truckload of money and/or a right cushy job lined up that will provide him said truckload of money. He serves no master but himself and he has no priorities excepting himself. And those priorities begin and end at ensuring he has enough resources to obtain and maintain what he believes to be an opulent living.

Make the position an elected one, watch him dance to the public's tune. Until then, the above holds true.

Think I'm full of it? Go carefully examine his comments regard net neutrality before and after the FCC website was crashed twice with a completely unprecedented (by several orders of magnitude) flood of comments from the public. The tone doesn't change one bit, and he is playing exactly the tune that he was placed there to play: keep the public interest from affecting the interest of the telecoms companies.

The public eye means nothing to him. So why even give it consideration? No, I maintain that compensation was promised and then reneged. Otherwise, why would Wheele put in even token effort, let alone bother to make comments in public that would run the risk of alienating one of his most likely sources of post-chairman sweet jobs and/or truckloads of cash?

A great example of exactly this is Meredith Attwell Baker. It saddens me how easy it seems to be that we forget such things.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

"Reasonable network management concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams."

Looks like someone didn't make good with the briefcase full of cash. Not smart, Verizon. When you and your industry chums get a blatantly corrupt top industry lobbyist put in power over your little cartel you should remember the first - and only - rule of blatantly corrupt lobbyists: the only thing they give a bent damn about is who is the money. Cease making with the protection funds and your "loyal" attack dog will bark at you...maybe even bite.

Come on, you folks are supposed to be smarter than this.

Multipath TCP speeds up the internet so much that security breaks

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Madness

"The gist of this article is that MPTCP may be restricted - and therefore we have a slower and less reliable service - because it makes it difficult to "undetectably alter or sniff your traffic".

Since when is this a socially legitimate rationale?"

When you're my employee trying to access corporate resources that I, as the business owner, demand be secured.

Now, I could of course force the streams to recombine via the use of proxies, VPN or various gateways at the edge of my network then perform analysis on single stream after it gets recombined. (Whatever happened to the idea of a DMZ?) But that would be silly, and it's much better instead to simply ban the use of said protocols altogether.

Okay, the snark is tongue in cheek. The reality is that if we did as I proposed we'd all have to reengineer our security mechanisms, and in turn goodly chunks of our networks. What will happen is that we'll simply ban MPTCP until such a time a few things occur A) our Preferred Vendors come up with single-unit solutions to this and B) we're on a refresh cycle anyways C) it's a minimal additional cost (as opposed to an expensive new feature) where the "additional cost" is deemed to be lower than the business benefit of allowing MPTCP on our networks.

This issue was raised a while ago, so there are probably about 5 startups in stealth mode with tech to handle it. They'll have a coming out part either at VMworld 2014 or in Early 2015. They will see minimal uptake and be followed by a flood of new entrants over the next 3 years at which point Juniper will implement it as a feature (probably by buying a startup) and Cisco will implement it as a Really Expensive Feature, but get it wrong and try to use it as a hook to make everything proprietary.

Shortly thereafter Palo Alto Networks and F5 will have figured out how to get it right and simply slipped it into the next release, making it somewhere between 5 and 6 years to enterprise mundane and probably 8 years to full commoditisation.

10 years from now we'll see enough support for MPTCP in the consumer gear that's actually in people's homes that we'll be able to see widespread adoption by device manufacturers and programers and 12 years from now we'll come up with something more efficient.

AWS hell no: Can Microsoft Azure sales beat Amazon's cloud?

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Loadsa AC's in here...

Yup. And eventually, cloud computing might come down enough in price that it's worthwhile for any but the largest enterprises. (Or those needing to bypass politics.) Eventually, we'll even see clouds with zero American legal attack surface, so the rest of the world can participate.

But eventually isn't now. Jumping up and down to cheerlead "this is the panacea for all ills" is ridiculous. Needs are diverse. Risk aversion is diverse. Capital availability is diverse, and the density of red tape is variable. Mainframes are still around for damned good reasons and clouds will be additive to existing IT schemas, not something that will block supplant them.

"It depends" isn't something that zealots can cope with. It must not only be black or white with them, it must be their preferred ideology.

If and when the cloud is ready for the mass market, I'm sure we'll see wider adoption. But right now, today, it's a terrible plan for most businesses if you care about value for dollar, let alone data sovereignty!

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Embrace, extend and extinguish

What the fuck does "making a lot of money" have to do with being trusted? The mafia makes a lot of money too, because they will break your fucking kneecaps if you don't pay up.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Loong term view

First of all: I don't believe that you work anywhere other than Microsoft. Secondly, even if you did work for some other big enterprise, does it make you feel special to be a disposable faceless drone amongst a sea of similar "resources"?

Do you somehow feel superior to others becasue of the size of the company you work for? Does the opportunity to specialise ever more narrowly, knowing more and more about less and less until you know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing make you feel like you somehow know everything?

You're a coward. A faceless, nameless, useless coward. You vomit assertions and tautologies and won't even put your name to your befuddled ravings. There's no reason to accept or believe you are anything other than a paid shill waving the banner of their paycheque in desperation.

Your livelihood very obviously depends on you believing Microsoft uber alles. Mine doesn't. Mine also doesn't depend on seeing any technology vendor succeed, or fail. I get paid the same regardless of who wins or loses because my job is to discuss technology as a whole, not to give a bent fuck who "wins".

We'll let the readers decide whether or not faceless assertions and transparent tautologies hidden behind a veil of anonymity represent sound technological - or business - advice.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Loadsa AC's in here...

For the most part...yes!

Companies move things to the cloud right now in large part because the monthly billing mechanism allows them to bypass internal purchasing regulations. It's politics - not prudence - that makes cloud computing attractive.

For the very, very few that see cost benefits from the cloud, you have to see what they're comparing it against. VCE versus cloud comes out roughly a wash. Running your own Supermicro + VMware setup absolutely and emphatically isn't going to be cheaper.

Christ, man, it costs over $1500 a year to run a single 2GB Linux VM in the fucking cloud! That may be cheaper for a single VM than buying a server, setting up a place to run it, dealing with backups, DR, etc. But as soon as you get to 5 VMs that isn't really the case any more. By 10 VMs you could be running a completely redundant setup that needs intervention only a few times a year and can run hundreds of "2GB Linux VMs".

So no, cloud computing isn't cheaper. It's easier...for managers. Which makes it politically expedient, nothing more. It's outsourcing by another name, and the people claiming "cloud computing is the solution to all ills for all companies of all sizes" are no different in any way than the shysters who trumpeted outsourcing to India as the solution to all ills.

They were wrong, and so are you.

Now, I at least put my name to these comments and predictions. Why should anyone believe you when you don't have the conviction in your words to attach your name to it? Your assertions and tautologies nothing. As do you, until you can stand up and say who you are and why you assert what you do.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Loong term view

No, we accidentally confused you with someone who had wits.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Embrace, extend and extinguish

I used to be one of Microsoft's loudest and proudest proponents. It should make you stop and think "what could have happened over the years that made him so vehemently anti-Microsoft, especially when he readily admits Microsoft has great technology?"

Or rather, it would make most people stop and thing. I suspect that you are not willing to engage critical thinking with regards to Microsoft.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Loadsa AC's in here...

Azure absolutely is a very good product.

It is not good value for money. "Cloud computing" in general isn't. Unless, of course, you're comparing it only to managed implementations of the most high-margin enterprise gear. Cisco on Cisco with a side of EMC and a thick layer of Oracle. Then they're about the same.

But hey, if you want to massively overpay for your IT, that's up to you. Cloud or no, you have opportunity to do so.

Yes, Australia's government SHOULD store comms metadata

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Most insane argument on ElReg in a loooong time...

If the government decides it must be stored, it and not ISPs should store it the country should rise up as one and drive the fuckers into the sea.

T,FTFY

Cisco says network virtualisation won't pay off everywhere

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Cisco are probably right...for now at least.

I have read Cisco's whitepaper. And various blogs. And talked to Cisco Champions and CCIEs on the subject. And used NSX, OpenDaylight and Juniper's amazeballs OpenFlow stuff. Cisco shouldn't be scared by software defined networking.

They should be pissing themselves in heart-stopping almighty fucking terror.

Only '3% of web servers in top corps' fully fixed after Heartbleed snafu

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Most linux admins believe....

"The very fact that you would put CentOS in production because you're too mean or greed to pay for RedHat on production machines (but use it on dev/test ones!) says *you* can't do your job - I would never deploy something that way just to save some money"

So, you're actually, factually an idiot that is overpaid and doesn't know how to do their job. Congratulations, you are the living embodiment of the Peter principle.

Why do you need RHEL in production for VMs you are never going to change or manage directly? And why the metric monkey fuck are you changing or managing your production systems directly? They should all be automated and orchestrated through vCAC and config-managed with Puppet. There is nothing about a production system that should ever require you to log into it. Logs should be collected centrally, configs pushed centrally, and everything about the system automated and disposable.

There's no business case for spending an RHEL license on that. You spend the RHEL licences on Dev and Test, which is where you actually to the work of building out new configs, testing your dependencies and checking for errors.

Also, I never said I don't know hot to use Microsoft's toolchain, you fucking numpty. I get paid to know how that all works. I have all-Microsoft production environments (well, for the moment they are) and I am willing to be I spend more time learning the ins and outs of that technology in my lab than you do working on it in production. Knowing that shit inside out and backwards is my job.

And yes, it's a relic. What AD and System Center can do, Puppet can do better. I don't tout Puppet because I like it, I tout it because it's the best. As a matter of fact, I hate how Puppet is implemented. I'm a GUI baby and I dislike this "lines of code" fuckery. But you can't argue with results, and Puppet is emphatically superior to Microsoft's monoculture management tools.

You are a Microsoft fanboy. You always have been. You can't see past your own emotional investment in the company and it's tools.

I was a Microsoft fanboy, once. I still deploy their stuff widely. But it has been a long time since I was narrow-minded enough to think them the solution for all ills. What matters is getting the best results in the shortest time with the lowest expenditure. If that isn't your goal as a systems administrator than you are doing your employer a massive disservice and you should quit now if you hope to retain a shred of personal honour and dignity.

Learn a bit about how IT has evolved in the past 14 years since Microsoft Monoculture was ascendant. You might be surprised at how amazing it has all become.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Buy a professional product...

You may not need Puppet for that, but why would you use a monoculture management toolset when you can use a toolset that works with everything? Why restrict yourself? What benefit does that give you as a business owner? Keeping geeks with biases happy isn't a viable rationale.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Most linux admins believe....

You could work for a company with millions of employees, that doesn't mean a damned thing if you can't do your job.

You're absolutely right that you need to worry about things like "buying certificates." Except that you can script that by having Puppet call the cert site's API, request a cert renewal, etc...or even just buy the cert and push it out using Puppet manually. It's like two lines of code to ensure that the old certs are removed and the new ones installed.

Complacent sysadmins are a problem. But the biggest complacency issue are sysadmins who refuse to learn new technologies that can help them be better at their jobs. Puppet and similar tools are the future. GPOs and other monoculture tools are relics of a best forgotten era.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Most linux admins believe....

Most Linux admins just use Puppet. That way they can push out cert changes, patches, etc. to hundreds of thousands of VMs instantly.

You actually don't even know how IT works in the real world anymore, do you?

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Buy a professional product...

"Group Policy"? What are you, from the aughties? Puppet, ya old crank. Puppet. That's how proper sysadmins handle systems management today. "Group Policy". Next you'll tell me you still develop software for legacy Wintel systems! [1]

Group Policy is limited to low value-for-dollar high-licensing-requirement Microsoft OSes. That's it's flaw. It would be great as a management infrastructure if it could support Linux, BSD and so forth, but it can't. So why both investing in it? Puppet can handle what needs to be handled, is cross platform, and allows you to get all the benefits you would have had from GPOs and GPPs.

Using Puppet you can do what normal people do: Buy RHEL support for Dev and Test, then run CentOS for production. Manage the whole lot with the same Puppet scripts. Drive your licensing costs into the floor, keep your support costs virtually nonexistant.

[1] Okay, that's disingenuous. I know nobody with cognitive capacity is still developing new Wintel software. But it's still hilariously fitting given the whole "group policy" thing.

Asteroid's DINO KILLING SPREE just bad luck – boffins

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Humphrys can make inadvertent fun out of anything

Could a smart dinosaur have existed? Maybe. But no matter how much Hollywood puts "idiocracy" into a movie, evolution doesn't work like that, and it doesn't work anywhere near that fast.

Psittacopasserae - Songbirds, Parrots, Corvids and the like - are pretty smart. But Cariamae - not to far off the evolutionary tree from Psittacopasserae are pretty mediocre, at least by mammalian standards.

Go on up to a side branch of Telluraves and look at families like Strigiformes (owls) and Piciformes (woodpeckers) and they're nowhere near as bright as Corvids. They're about as bright as Cariamae.

This means that the extreme high intelligence seen in Corvids and Parrots is probably restricted to Psittacopasserae. (Let's save arguments about Falconidae for later, hmm?)

Go all the way up the tree to Neoaves and look at Galloanserae (chickens and other waterfoul) and they're dumb as posts. With the sole exception of Columbiformes (pigeons), pretty much everything under Neoaves are dumb as posts, and the Ratites - which are up a bit from Neoaves are just as dumb.

Now, this says to me one of two things happened: Pigeons evolved intelligence separately from Psittacopasserae, or intelligence evolved prior to Ratites, and virtually every bird family since birds began evolved to be dumb except Pigeons, Parrots and Corvids.

So we start looking at Pigeons versus Corvids. Long story short: Pigeons are nearly as smart as Corvids overall, but they are good at completely different tasks. Parrots, OTOH, aren't quite as smart as Crows, but are generally proficient in the same sorts of tasks.

This says that it's really likely Pigeons evolved intelligence separately from Parrots/Corvids, and that Parrots and Corvids likely shared a common "smart" ancestor. (With Corvids evolving more towards intelligence than Parrots in the same time.)

So if dinosaurs were smart, where did that smart go? It didn't seem to make it into birds. It's possible that non-avian dinosaurs were smart...but when we start looking for signs of advanced brain structures in their skulls - for whatever little that's worth - we don't find them. No evidence of higher complexity, or any species of non-avian dinosaur with even an avian EQ, let alone a mammalian one.

So I honestly don't think it's very likely that "dinosaurs were smart, then evolved into dumb." Evolving to be less bright can - and usually does - come with "evolving to be small". Smaller animal = smaller brain. There are exceptions - Modern Humans, Corvids, Proboscidea, etc - but as a general rule "smaller brain = dumber". This is where looking for special brain structures comes in, as they could indicate intelligence in smaller brained animals.

Most dinos weren't huge. We're pretty sure that the huge dinos tended to have brains that were actually less massive than their spinal columns. So where does that leave us? Potentially a freak family here or there that evolved intelligence then snuffed it rather quick? Possible.

But how likely do you really think it is, given the evidence, that said smart dinos even existed, let alone devolved over time. Idocracy takes millions of years, and usually leaves a fossil trace.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Humphrys can make inadvertent fun out of anything

"The idea that they would ever have come DOWN from the trees to hunt... well, it's just side-splitting."

Why? Dinosaurs were stupid. Hell, chickens have several million years worth of evolution on them. Being large and vicious doesn't mean nearly so much as being clever.

Lions, tigers and bears - oh my! - didn't stop us. Why would dinosaurs have? Do remember that the really scary stuff - gigantasaurus and so forth - lived in a world with massively different temperatures and atmospheric oxygen content.

Dinos lives in a world of much higher free oxygen. Most wouldn't be able to breathe in our atmosphere. So yeah, we'd have to deal with some truly terrifying things...but they're all more or less like what we've had to deal with already.

Our ancestors faces down dire wolves and saber-toothed cats, dined on mammoth and fought terror birds. While I, personally, wouldn't want to face an angry velociraptor or a pack of compys, that doesn't mean at all that we wouldn't have been able to take the bastards, if they'd made it.

Of the dinosaurs that could have survived to today more or less unchanged, I doubt there are any that would have truly threatened our extinction.

Amazon Reveals One Weird Trick: A Loss On Almost $20bn In Sales

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Clever...

As recently as two years ago I was still a fanboy, at least of their server team. I still worship Jose Barreto and his gaggle of gangsta goons. But great minds and great technology cannot overcome the overwhelming douchiness of management decisions.

You could have Elon goddamn Musk working in the server team and it still wouldn't make a difference unless they let him set policy. (At which point Microsoft would go from 0 to hero in about 0.0000001 picoseconds.)

So that's where we are. I love a lot of the folks that work there. I think they make some great tech. But I cannot condone their actions or choices. They are simply dishonorable. Not trustworthy. I'll gladly use technology from a vendor that doesn't have as many great minds, or products quite as advanced if I can place just that little bit more truth in that vendor. If there is a relationship to be built.

But like hell am I going to accept a relationship with a vendor - any vendor - in which my part of the relationship is "subject of $vendor". I am nobody's subject.

Bring back error correction, say Danish 'net boffins

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

@Tom the backbone providers did have to tear up all their stuff to be IPv6 ready. But for the whole internet to be ready everyone has to. And they ask - quite rightly - "why should I?" It doesn't benefit them to do so.

"Implement securely? What are you even talking about? Even if your 1999 firewall doesn't support IPv6, your 2014 firewall supports IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously."

Damned few consumer grade routers do. Oh, they might pass IPv6 packets, but now you've moved defense of the home network from a single device (the home router) to every. device on that network needing to be defended. Unless you have a really good (read: expensive) router/firewall and someone who knows how to use it.

SMBs and the commercial midmarket are in worse shape: they have more diverse requirements than "open up a port so I can RDP into my home machine" or "push the VPN button so that I can VPN to work." Their costs are proportionately higher, as is the complexity they have to cope with, trying to now defend a network where every single node has a globally addressable IP address.

I do, however, find it hilarious that you quote the bit where I said "in order to make IPv6 work you have to tear up the internet and replace it" and then go on to say both "that's a lie" and "it works just fine if you buy all new stuff". Great compartmentalization of thought there. Top class.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: @Trevor_Pott

Actually, yes, one address does map to a person since there's nothing like NAT to anonymise users. There aren't a hell of a lot of things NAT's good for, but the helping to hide exactly which individual behind the edge router is responsible for posting that dissident comment about the government is one of them.

I never said IPv4 and NAT guaranteed privacy, just that they offered one layer that IPv6 doesn't.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: On eof those "We can build a new internet that's X times faster if we scrap the old one first"

Don't see why. The existing internet's pretty shit. Full of monied interests and governments trying to remove civil liberties. Let's get a proper decentralized meshnet going with a brand new protocol and ditch the existing Internet, eh?

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

IPv6 isn't seeing rapid adoption mostly because the astounding arrogance of the people who created the protocol resulting in our getting a protocol that requires tearing up the entire internet to implement it. You need to buy at least one new everything and to implement it securely you need to often replace "one new everything" with "several". The cost of the transition is enormous for end users and SMBs and the ongoing costs are higher than IPv4.

And all because whiny baby developers were so sad about having to ad a few extra lines of code to deal with NAT that they turned purging it from IPv6 into a religion. What the world wanted was IPv4 with a larger address space and a few under-the-hood enhancements. What we got was a clusterfuck designed to restrict how we can run our own networks and strip away any hope of privacy from the average job by making damned sure that an IP in fact DOES map to a person.

Grand.

If a new protocol showed up with concrete benefits that didn't require throwing out the baby with the bathwater it would be uptaken in short order. The problem underlying IPv6 is that, ultimately, we don't want to give up the good parts of IPv4 to get at the good parts of IPv6. We're being frogmarched towards it with a gun at our heads, but you can't expect that we're all that happy about it.

Microsoft says 'weird things' can happen during Windows Server 2003 migrations

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Well shit, that would have been useful in November. It does, however, a lot of paint-peeling cursing that went on then...

Microsoft bakes a bigger Pi to cook Windows slabs

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Overspecified

Windows RT works fine on ARM devices. The only problems with are completely artificial. Microsoft locked down the OS, preventing the use of desktop-style apps or server apps. Windows RT is worthless as a tablet OS. It would have been glorious as a server OS. You know, servers. Where it's not out of the question to develop entirely new software to match a platform, if there is a good reason.

Consumers, SMBs and the commercial midmarket, OTOH, aren't just going to throw away decades worth of software investment so that Microsoft can have a new one-application-at-a-time (or two side-by-side in utterly useless fashion) touch-based OS.

*shrug* Microsoft. Missing the point is a thing.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

"When you additionally consider that the Windows Driver Kit 8.1 can pair with Visual Studio Express and are both free with a valid MSDN account"

So, for $300 you get a low end Atom without even an Ethernet port and a copy of a Windows OS designed for tablets. To make use of it you need an MSDN account.

Price of MSDN starts at $700 for just "operating systems". Visual Studio Pro with MSDN is $1200. The one you actually need as a sysadmin is $2170 but they go all the way up to $13300. All of that per year.

A Raspberry Pi + case + as many copies of as many variants of Linux as you want is $100. Tops.

Only you can decide if Microsoft's offer is worth it for you. Based on the above, I think I will develop my applications for non Microsoft platforms. Microsoft is simply too rich for my blood.

Flamewars in SPAAACE: cooler fires hint at energy efficiency

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: oh hell...

Didn't they just prove that you could build an internal combustion engine that worked better. in space than on Earth? With Titan being all hydrocarbons, seems to me you could now get conservatives interested in space exploration...

Bitcoin on ATM? Pfft! We play Doom on ours

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Fun times! Good fun for all. Made me smile.

Microsoft in Chinese burn ENIGMA: Anti-trust agents' 'sudden visit' to offices

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

"We aim to build products that deliver the features, security and reliability customers expect, and we will address any concerns the government may have."

That's the greatest cover your ass quote of all time, even if horribly inaccurate.

1) Microsoft products have way more features than customers expect, or know about.

2) Microsoft products are way more secure than people have come to expect based on past performance. With the exception of IE, they're actually not bad, for being among the most attacked products out there. The issue is typically third party software.

Additional problems:

A) Microsoft won't price products at a level that customers can actually afford. See: VDA, SPLA, or the new "per core" licensing. Thanks, Oracle Microsoft!

B) Microsoft won't address any of the concerns that customers may have regarding their products*.

So a great bit of fluffy PR faffery...but ultimately means nothing.

*From soul-destroyingly bad UIs to tentacular omnishambles licensing through to privacy or even something as simple as guaranteed product lifespans to ensure that we don't get PlaysForSured in this increasingly Cloud First, Mobile First, Customers/Partners/Developers/Staff last world.

When the servers are turned off because they don't represent "ongoing shareholder value" for Microsoft, but you rely on them...what then? Hmm? And just who can see your data, under what circumstances? What is Microsoft doing to reduce that to "you and only you can ever see your data"?

Leaked Windows Phone 8.1 Update specs tease details of Nokia's next mobes

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

A bunch of evolutionary updates and even dual SIM support. It sounds like a a great update that could really benefit Microsoft's Windows Phone customers.

...what's the catch?

DAYS from end of life as we know it: Boffins tell of solar storm near-miss

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: " You build underground. "

I'm sorry, it's a personality flaw. I'm functionally incapable of lying, and as a consequence I am functionally incapable of being politically correct. I say what I think, and as such am generally uncensored. In fact "you're an idiot" was positively polite, compared to the raw version that appeared in my brain after reading that fellow's reply.

I get the whole "you're supposed to look better than the other guy by being all prim and proper and grey poupon and professionalism." I'm just actually incapable of it.

I could say "I disagree with you so thoroughly that, upon careful examination of your response, I believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in your reasoning process such that it affects your ability to perceive and act upon reality in a logical and rational manner." The problem is that sounds haughty and pompous and I'm not entirely certain the individual in question would get it. "You're an idiot" is more pithy, but accurate and bears with it social connotations of exclusion, ostracisation and even mockery that I really do kind of want to include in my riposte.

Does the desire to fire that barb make me a bad person? Almost certainly yes. I try to be a good person, but I'm still very human. I don't tolerate well people who are selfish. I hate them on so fundamental a level you'd think it was genetic.

The individual in question's responses indicated a selfishness that incensed me. His responses were individual-centric and his vision narrow, even mundane. The scope of his understanding was small and so he tried to reduce everyone else to his level.

When talking about something so critical - and so essentially non-individual - as the long term survival of our species, to insist on the scope of the one to the detriment of the many is infuriating. It's like being in the middle of a conversation about diverse stellar phenomena and having some dude walk in and say "I saw a black hole explode once." It's preposterous on it's face, and so jarring as to be almost physically painful.

Maybe I wouldn't have been so petty if he hadn't begun his comment "That's a silly idea, and you know it." Maybe. Starting his response with that line made me feel a lot like Foghorn Leghorn trying to have a serious conversation while Henry Hawk keeps trying to challenge him to a fight. "Go on, git, ya bother me!"

I care nothing for the individual claiming the singularity is about to explode. By tomorrow I'll have forgotten then exist at all. But I absolutely want to make it clear in no uncertain terms to anyone reading this thread that what they're espousing is at best horrifically misinformed and at worst purposefully misleading. "You're an idiot" seems a particularly expeditious means by which to make my feelings in that matter known.

Now, as to why I feel the need to jump in when someone is wrong on the internet...when you solve that one, I'll be quite interested. I have narrowed it down to comments made as factual statements that are both demonstrably incorrect and where decisions made on the basis of those incorrect statements would negatively affect large numbers of people. For reasons beyond my ken, those comments bother me a great deal and I am compelled to attempt to set them right...

...but I am still work on "politely".

Google's Canadian 'memory hole' to continue

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Fairly pointless

How do you take action against a company selling things internationally using the internet but which doesn't have a presence in your nation? For that matte,r how do you pursue libel or slander cases internationally?

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Comment comment comment

@Steve Davies 3

Actually, given that we have so many treaties with the US, I wouldn't be surprised if something like that ended up in a NAFTA court. Where US laws and Canadian laws conflict, Canadian judges don't tend to back down.

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

Re: Comment comment comment

"So what happens when a Chinese judge orders Google to forget about Tienanmen all over the world?"

IIRC, Google subsequently left China. Which was quickly followed by Baidu's absolute dominance over that market.