Re: CGHQ is no better
If you pay peanuts, you attract a certain kind of primate. Not usually the capable white hat sort.
72 posts • joined 27 Jun 2010
If you pay peanuts, you attract a certain kind of primate. Not usually the capable white hat sort.
... and this is the same Home Secretary recommending we build a backdoor to PKI encryption for their use, "to save the children" and "catch more terrorists".
No. Just no.
@NeilPost If you recall the entire debacle that is BDUK, you would realise that nobody has the commercial capability to compete with BT/OpenReach because of the way the funding framework is designed. Only the incumbent with the last mile copper had ANY hope of winning our tax money. The BDUK participants went from 10 down to 2, with Fujitsu fading into insignificance in the light of DCMS sucking up the "homes passed" rubbish, and endless definitions of "Super Fast" to ensure that VDSL2 qualified irrespective of distance from the cabinet or copper/aluminium line quality.
There really isn't any choice, so long as OpenReach owns the last mile. A vague glimmer of hope in B4RN up in Lancashire is being largely ignored by our government, where communities have demonstrated how to fund, deploy and manage *REAL* FTTP - dedicated fibre to every household. Utterly future proof. Not a G.PON in sight.
As for asking BT for FTTP, I did. My village switch was upgraded recently to FTTC, so I called up and said "money is no object, can you quote me for FTTP please". They said, "no, never ... we have no plans for your exchange". I guess rural areas remain "commercially unviable" for BT ... until they get more of our tax money and they decide when that time comes, not our government.
... and STOP with the ridiculous "homes passed" statistic.
Taking fibre from the exchange to the cabinet does not provide fibre optic broadband to everyone with a telephone line on the cabinet. You still have copper and you need to have an available port on the DSLAM. BT aren't putting enough DSLAM ports in the cabinets to cater for all the lines, especially in rural areas. They are taking BDUK funding (£1.2b) and telling MPs that a "home passed" has "access to fibre optic broadband" without explaining the lack of capacity and reachability of the VDSL technology (~1.2Km), and the oft discussed G.Fast technology which has less than 500m of useful range.
Utter poppycock. I might as well say I have access to teleportation - it just remains for me to invent it and create the portal.
Unfortunately, DCMS believes all that BT lay before them. They need to smarten up.
I've been contracting for more than 20 years. The nominal increase in dividend tax isn't so bad. However, the IR35 nonsense is pure stupidity. The troglodytes at HMRC that bang this drum need to stop banging it, as much as the Conservative MPs that listen to them. Nobody wants this tax. It doesn't make money.
If the Civil Service and public services were more efficient, and played by the private sector rules, then 50% of them would be unnecessary in months. My jaw hits the ground everytime I see a public service contract for IT services, or hear of the latest gross negligence on a multi-billion pound project with zero consequences for the civil servants at the heart of it. There are savings to be made there. Go get them.
@DrM I have to agree. The interface is poor, leaving you to forage through the convoluted logfiles. Errors messages are proprietary and misleading. Without support, you are dead in the water.
But wait, there's more ... even if you fork out for the full commercial version of True image 2015, you get 30 days support, then NOTHING. If you pay £15/incident, you get to call and speak to them, otherwise it's the forums and no guarantees.
Not what you want from a backup/recovery vendor taking your money.
Where is the justification, from places like Iran (ho ho ho), that such powers IMPROVE the situation?
Asking for a human rights/democracy bashing piece of legislation without saying WHY or presenting a compelling business case doesn't make GCHQ or Theresa look very good. I suspect she may not understand the implications of putting backdoors into open source PKI encryption, or have had the consequences explained to her competently by an authority without a vested interest. Legislation supporting such (impossible I might add) activities needs to be justified by those asking for it, with more than a "trust us" punchline. "Think of the children" is tired and old. Society as a whole thankfully doesn't appear to trust those using such futile propaganda - so that argument fails.
Perhaps there is no justification after all ... ergo .... stop this "anti-British" erosion of basic freedom. Nothing to see here ... move along please. PLEASE!
... so why would they share their mobile network infrastructure? By controlling access to the wholesale infrastructure, they control the market.
Last time I looked at anything "complex", doing it "quickly" was a sub-optimal approach, cough.
BT (Group) need to try harder and up their end consumer service standards, before getting bigger.I applaud the competition watchdog for taking their time, turning all the rocks over. Let the whack-a-mole games begin.
... feel the width! With the race to market for the "next app", developers drop quality like a stinky poo. Speed to market is all that matters. The complexity of modern applications, with the number of API layers bewildering, understanding security and performance is very, very difficult. Google and Microsoft are having a simply wonderful time right now arguing about it.
It's no surprise that so many organisations jump on the "cloud" bandwagon, as all evil is apparently removed from your plate of responsibility, handed to the folk that live in that "cloudy place" over there. Do the problems move? Do they go away? Do the cloudy folk do a better job than you were doing before you moved your primary data assets into their "cloudy place"? How would you know?
This obsession by IBM with the cloud thing is very dangerous, as they haven't defined the thing. There was a time when IBM might have been the company to call it for what it is ... a move back to conceptually centralised data processing using shared compute and storage resources. I'm not going to say it out loud :-)
If Mr Cameron maintains this position, I will do my utmost to explain to all my non-techy friends, relatives and anyone else who will listen why the Conservatives must NOT be elected, irrespective of their other policies or the unsavoury flavour of other idiots on parade. He just weaponised the competent security community against the Conservatives.
This is naive beyond comprehension. Mr Cameron - PLEASE ask a subject matter expert on security about encryption and privacy before you next get carried away in public. That does not mean Theresa, sorry. Without any cold, hard evidence of the benefits of further snooping, you do NOT need any further snooping capability, nor should you get any.
Until the FBI spokesfolk get some skin in the game and present actual verifiable facts, that would hurt if disproved, our confidence in what they say being true remains in the gutter.
They have lost our trust, and need to regain it with interest before such announcements mean I'll put my copy of The Beano down to listen to the news announcement.
So ... here's one of the best summaries around, dated August 2012 sure, of the mess Oracle are making while getting off the fence. Oracle’s Director for Cloud Business Development says it out loud at VMworld 2012.
Yes, this is just RDBMS licensing, and doesn't directly address "app specific" RDBMS licensing or any custom negotiation that HMG should have done, intelligently, for eBS.
It's a humorous read/listen, as Oracle really don't want to lose the revenue they'd get by more folks using VMware in preference to Hyper-V or XEN hypervisors. Or indeed, in preference to SQL Server or postgres. Cough.
@wolfetone Ask them! :-)
CC the ICO.
Once again fantastic claims of "aiding crime prevention" without a shred of evidence to support them. Ms May appears ill informed, and thinks all she has to do is convince a non-technical parliamentary group to give her something she can wave as a trophy. Where are the subject matter experts, lining up to support her? Scared of peer review I expect.
And does a DSL DHCP allocation to a router go far enough? If not, do they think ISPs can afford to deploy technology to map an individual (ID cards anyone?) to an IP address beyond the NATing router? What about public access points? VPNs? Proxies? RFC1918 addresses? They have no clue.
If she succeeds, as there aren't enough security professionals to vote her out, she will go down as the Home Secretary that gave away our freedom.
Is there any? I see similar exploitation opportunities here, as within the motor vehicle insurance industry.
Protected no-claims bonuses are NOT transferable, unless your current insurance provider and your prospective one agrees to it. It's just a contract. Ever made a claim? Ever been told how much your underwriter actually paid to the injured party? Ever asked, "if I make a claim for £3k today, what will my premium be at renewal?" Ever had an answer?
The veil of secrecy means it is a market ripe for corruption. There is no FoI act here - this is plain private sector commercial profit, behind a veil of loss adjustment process secrecy.
... and Experian? A self declared, state supported tri-opoly. Equifax, Experian and Call Credit. Absolute power, little or no accountability for their mistakes.
Experian sent my "free" credit report to me with the wrong name on the address on the envelope. Not a statistically significant mistake for them, but a 100% fail for me had someone else opened that letter. Did the ICO prosecute or fine them, under the Data Protection Act? Of course not. Why not? You would have to ask him.
Accountability? ZERO. Unfair burden of proof on the individual before they update information they store on the individual. We are expected to clean their database, which they happily sell for substantial gain. It is THEIR mistakes that ruin lives.
BBC Watchdog on credit agencies, to see just how bad they are:
... in the commercial world, there would be real, tangible consequences for such failure. Businesses would go bankrupt, and people would lose their jobs if they were responsible for it. Otherwise, it will happen, again, and again ... etc.
Why doesn't this happen with tax payer funded IT? Is our only recourse to vote the "other" lot in next election? NRAC - not really a choice.
@Credas - sometimes a biased politician makes a statement that is no less true than if a saint had spoken the very same words. Perhaps you should wind your neck in occasionally, and remember this? It is hard, granted.
... and who measures the value?
... this rather assumes the VMs are all on a fairly flat network, and there is a complete and sufficient set of VMs that can understand the egress/ingress network traffic involved in such a migration, and still function with everything they used to talk to from the original site. Think BGP updates, traffic volumes, DNS, AD DCs ... the list is substantial.
The security profile will probably look rather different when running in Azure. Why didn't the company just host their VMs there in the first place? This reeks of "tick the DR box for the regulator" with fingers and toes firmly crossed that it never gets tested with a real event.
Not convinced this is viable for anyone but SMBs with a few 10's of VMs, or organisations that pump out "the next app" barely alpha tested, who care more about ability to pump out "the next app" than any real service level for infrastructure/compute/storage services.
No you don't. It remains optional whether or not you have a fixed line or not. Many homes run on mobiles now. You can, optionally, register your VoIP number at a specific address as a work around.
There's no legal basis to "compel" a residential premise to have two wires with 45V to ring a bell and provide a dialtone on a phone when the premises have a powercut. If you MUST have a BT telephone line, then BT are compelled to provide that, but that landline is optional at your premises.
Utter waste of time and space. Politicians that make vacuous statements without any factual basis should be fired. That's how it works in the commercial world. You lie, you lose. They'd best be careful, as I and many others have been to Westminster to point out (some of us to select committees) how irresponsible such claims can be when public money is being spent.
Ed Vaisey, Maria Miller, and Jeremy Hunt are all too aware of this. Mr Williams of BT Group had rather a roasting on his 2nd and 3rd summons to the Public Accounts Committee to explain BTs fiasco with BDUK funds. The good bits start at 16:53:50
... reintroducing this wonderful device may improve both the number and quality of CBAs produced by government projects when justifying the eye watering amounts they spend on IT projects which invariably (pretty much) fail.
In the commercial world, I can't recall a single government IT project that would pass muster at the "project mandate" stage never mind a business case that is believable.
... with an opt-out approach, I'd have more time for iOS. As it is, my next devices will not run iOS due to the number of "freezes" and "crashes" that I'm experiencing in non-essential apps like ... ummmm - MAIL.
... groan. Just groan. They ask for complete trust from the public, having demonstrated repeated inadequacy to manage databases of information that they collect. Until they earn trust, they will get none. In the process of earning that trust, they will perhaps learn all the reasons why collecting the data is an unnecessary and unwarranted privacy violation. Perhaps not.
If I hear "it will keep us safe" one more time, without anyone providing clear, objective data and arguments underpinning that statement, I will vote UKIP in protest. Well, maybe not that far.
... and with the checkered history of the mobile telco industry, there is only uphill ahead when selling space to the content producers.
We were all supposed to be watching TV on our UMTS 3G mobiles, remember? That didn't happen.
I have trouble getting a tweet out often enough, on my train journey into London. #fail
... I mean really? You did this on a Friday?
RFC1925 should have an extension to outlaw all PROD changes on a Friday.
... tested and bug free, since the release date of iOS7. So that's going to be well engineered code then.
My next phone will be Android. Just because.
... their Sky GO viewer just doesn't work on the latest version of Silverlight that Automatic Updates tries to feed you repeatedly. You are forced to downgrade to v4, which isn't easy for non-techies.
Normal user experience from Sky. Not a nice company.
... this is shorttermism at its best - "I want a chunk of chocolate now", when the whole bar is available with a little patience and doing the right thing. This is ignoring the maintenance cost of copper and the restrictions of radio. Important to keep all those fields engineers employed ... far more important than a future-proof broadband technology, evidently. When a politician opens with a punt at the previous party, you know he's a technologist at heart <cough>.
With governments in Oz and the UK backing the incumbents that only have eyes for their rusty copper network profit streams, some communities are DIYing their fibre to break the profit cycle. Gob-smacked that government (we elect them don't we?) are not more supportive of public/community owned broadband infrastructure.
... demonstrated that young, beautiful women in very short dresses are exceptionally strong in IT security knowledge and skills. Why else would so many have crammed into the conference?
Didn't the French once try to sell washing machines, by putting a bra on a model and sitting her on top of the machine in the advert?
@SRS - yep. This is a BT Openreach problem. They are the monopoly, and they hide behind retail customer facing ISPs presenting a level of service so poor that the ISPs can't even put lipstick on the pig.
If only BT were smart enough to put fibre back in the ground after the copper was knicked. After all, it is broadly agreed that an 80% civil engineering cost overhead is required to put cables into the ground, so why wouldn't they capitalise on their civil engineering repair costs and upgrade it to fibre?
Lower maintenance, longer lifespan, future proof ... but wait. That would decimate BT's leased line business, and not help their BDUK race to the bottom DSL technology deployment dead-end.
Ah well ... coat, grabbed, gone.
Yep. It's as future proof as a puddle in the Sahara.
Copper is not the future. The ASA say BT can continue to call it "fibre broadband", as the data travels over fibre for MOST of the distance towards your home, until it comes in to your house. Cue image of a 6 lane motorway, becoming a single track farm road that doesn't like it when it rains ... how many vehicles per hour down there? It's the wrong technology. Just plain wrong.
It's our tax money BDUK are spending with BT, and we have no effective oversight of BTs interpretation of "financially viable". They are having all their cake, and munching down on it.
Bootnote: Can we trade in HS2 for FTTH for everyone? The numbers seem to add up [HA HA HA]
... isn't what I'd call "mainstream" for Backblaze. I see their drives, in enclosures that required shutting the whole thing down to replace a single drive, as "jam jars". You fill 'em up once with lots and lots of writes, then occasionally you ask pretty please for some of the data back. Meanwhile you truck on to filling up the next "jam jar". As the data on the drives age, the read requests reduce, to the point where they can probably be powered down, waiting for a stray read request that needs something from a dormant spindle.
This isn't "classic" OLTP or datacentre duty for a spindle. Apples and oranges ... please.
Some "science" on the duty cycle per spindle of the drive comparison would better inform us the of the job these drives were doing. You put a layer of write buffering flash in front of these boxes to further level out the writes to become almost synchronous to each spindle, and you change the drive head step pattern again. Heck ... we'll have the stuff on tape soon [SMILE].
I mean really - 150? That's it? Try again.
... will become the norm more so than it already is. Whose cell was I logged on to when I got the 56Kbps download using my shiny 4G phone? Whose backhaul was saturated when 12 of us watched that Premiership match in HD?
Helpdesks, performance and coverage are so poor from both operators, that my expectations are low enough for me not to care much about this new agreement. In my neck of the woods at any rate.
Surely not by clicking on the green SSL certificate? We all know how that can end nowadays.
Because users with weak passwords understand PKI and certificate authority trust chains.
Well intention'd, but I shiver at the money they are spending on the campaign. Bit like their ludicrous approach to broadband (BDUK) and giving £1.2b to BT. That'll end well.
Very easy for Three to limit roaming to 4, 6, 8, whatever weeks of consecutive airtime without the SIM returning to its UK HLR.
Smallprint will reveal all I expect.
Ummm ... so if you want to upload/backup to an Internet cloud service or use concurrent HD video conferencing streams, you're restricted to 20 Mbps? Perhaps BT haven't heard that the last 20 years of Internet traffic patterns don't necessarily represent the next 20 years?
So where are all the BT Infinity 2 "fibre" (it's not - it's COPPER) folk with "up to" 80 Mbps?
... why won't BT tell us where they are, and let energetic, motivated communities like B4RN fix it themselves?
If Openreach hadn't made PIA so expensive, others could have competed on a fairer playing field. No surprise that Fujitsu pulled out and that BT is winning all these contracts - there isn't any competition for reasons that the EU understood very well and wanted performance and monitoring conditions on the State Aid approval.
Ah yes. And in other news, 86.7% of broadband users said their speeds dropped by 20% last year.
PS: In a survey of 15 users, interviewed in the Dog 'n' Duck at 10:50pm on a Friday.
The broadband divide between urban and rural gets bigger. Yes indeed.
BT know that the people that matter in communications can see straight through this hogwash. Publish the detail on the stats, if you want to get credibility BT - don't play politics and publish nonsense numbers.
... yeah RIGHT. Microsoft promise to pay you the paltry amount you paid them for each user. The atrocious effect on your business is not their problem and never will be.
If you choose cloud, choose very, very carefully. Putting stuff there without understanding the risk to your business could be a career limiting move.
@Drew - you may or may not be aware that the KCC BDUK team have issued a confidential (WHY WHY WHY?) Invitation to Tender with support from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to "improve rural broadband". The results of the tender are expected to be announced in April this year. If BT don't win it I'll eat my hat. The confidential list of respondees are chasing BDUK RCBF funding which they are expected to match. What the successful bidder is planning to do nobody is saying, not even TWBC or KCC, which I see as unhelpful at the very least. If necessary I will be raising an FoI request to expose this spend of public funds to improve public awareness of the value derived. I strongly suspect a limited number of FTTC cabinets will appear and little more.
To measure the benefit, a not-for-profit community organisation called Broadband 4 the Rural South have deployed 67 Sam Knows (www.samknows.com) "whiteboxes" and have a GoogleMap (http://www.b4rs.org.uk/GoogleMap) with monitored speeds across the parish of Speldhurst. Any benefit from funds spent with a commercial operator will be carefully monitored and reported on! Great to hold anyone getting public money to account for what they deliver. B4RS (www.b4rs.org.uk) itself wants to repeat in Kent the success of B4RN (www.b4rn.org.uk) up in Cumbria.
Given the undeniable goal of Openreach to please its shareholders in preference to providing rural broadband in Kent, it's not fair to expect them to deliver fast rural broadband in loss making areas. What we don't need however, is our government providing them with public money to extend the life of their long paid for copper infrastructure, allowing them to interfere with others who don't need to make a profit from fixing it! They can't have it both ways. It is all rather David and Goliath, of course. Yes, I'm a huge supporter of B4RN and B4RS.
At least Israel has decided to fund and implement future proof fibre, and not pump the long paid for, legacy, rotten, rusty, copper, owned by an incumbent that must appease shareholders first, everyone else after that. UK Plc doing nothing about it - BDUK is a farce in its current form.
... would have made a more compelling article. It is very difficult to build reliable QoS for cloud services, private or otherwise. Quoting your own statistics to support the legacy CAPEX procurement model in 2010 smacks of fox counting chickens. There are many organisations that currently have a percentage of procurement coming from "true cloud" (cough - flexible, metered, granular, on-demand services), however business critical services won't get there until the QoS is reliable and rigid enough.
Of course, we all know the internet isn't a predictable resource, don't we? Anything cloud, over the internet, has an immediate hurdle right there.
... is more fundamental.
Storage often isn't as "simple" as an organisation the size of Dell would like it to be (the "Simplification bandwagon"). When you arrive at a client, their current mess, and you wouldn't be there if there wasn't one, needs a careful guiding hand to make enough sense of it, to understand which bits can be effectively and profitably simplified.
By dumbing the exercise down to the point where cheap storage hardware margin is expected to cover the cost of the clever analysis, the business model starts to fall apart, and the quality delivered to the end client falls. This affects market perception and the value of any "consumed" vendor that used to be a specialist in a unique area.
Infrastructure is becoming a commodity, but the complexity of implementing the commodity bag of spanners for a specific customer's business process, isn't changing. Too many customers forget to build in appropriate billing engines to the infrastructure deployment, then realise after the project that they have no idea how much it is actually costing, and therefore what they're saving on OPEX - but it is VERY dynamic and shiny. Duh.
Deary me ... I trust we're not all assuming the transaction that matters is at the storage interface. It's one piece of a much bigger puzzle.
It's a sad fact that the majority of organisations don't have a complete view of where their "business" transactions actually take place, and by inference what must be persisted, and how, given various types of failures.
Don't we have to fix that, before we trumpet to the business "replicate the array and we're all good, buddy"?
Try bringing up 46 Windows VMs from a corrupt VMFS v5 partition on a 1TB LUN. Ain't happening. Even if they booted, and NTFS found MOST of the orphaned clusters on the vdisks, the apps are unlikely to be consistent especially if they use a binary DB of some description. But blindly we continue to trust ... "she's up - must be good".
Putting too much money into a single link in the technology chain supporting a transaction isn't good value, and doesn't solve the bigger problem. Spreading infrastructure investment appropriately across the entire transaction footprint, driven by business requirements and risk, is the way of the enlightened grasshopper.
I would argue that storage alone is not the answer here, nor is HSM (which mainframes had ohhhhh ... a while back), nor is the RDBMS, nor is transactional JMS - it's a little bit of everything, in just the right amounts. Just add beer.
Fetching coat, again.