Re: Microsoft FAIL
"other vendors can provide similar and sometimes better storage management solutions"
780 posts • joined 4 Jun 2007
"other vendors can provide similar and sometimes better storage management solutions"
"Why one would put OnTAP 'in the cloud' when there are much leaner and meaner (and cheaper) solutions available is a mystery."
Data OnTAP is what gives NetApp its value at this point--there's no particular secret to building chassis with hard drives and slapping some management logic on the whole thing. OnTAP has a shedload of useful features, including high-performance CIFS and NFS presentation, deduplication and compression, application-aware snapshots, etc. There are also a great many NetApp loyalists who would no doubt find appealing the idea of a cloud service which runs familiar tools and features. The back end storage will, in fact, probably be lean and mean (or cheap and cheerful); OnTAP gives clients a powerful and feature-filled way to manage it.
Nethack did (and does) allow you to save to preserve your game when you had to go do something other than play Nethack, but death was permanent.
Fundamentally, that's what you're doing anyway. You "buy" a storage array, and then you pay enough in service and support that four years later, you've bought it again. Sure, you can let it go out of support . . . as long as you don't care about your data too much.
Interesting . . . in the sense that everyone else seems to disagree with you. From what I've read, the HA2800 is all-Flash by default but can be expanded with SATA disks to provide cheaper bulk storage.
. . . and he ordered a beer.
This should put paid to any sort of foolishness about an anthrocentric universe. Quite the contrary, Earth itself is just waiting to kill us.
Strictly speaking, "literally" means a thing which is true in a direct sense, while "figuratively" means something which is only true in a metaphorical sense. However, that battle has also been lost this year.
Meanwhile, dictionary.com defines defenestration as:
1 : a throwing of a person or thing out of a window
2 : a usually swift dismissal or expulsion (as from a political party or office)
So, if Ballmer happened to be thrown of out a window (possibly due to a bounced chair rebounding back on him), he would be doubly defenestrated, in both cases literally even though one literal definition is also figurative.
Confused yet? English is a hell of a language!
Yes, California is truly an awful place, with its beaches, redwood forests, wine country, culture, and cuisine. I would much rather move to Texas, where I can enjoy the delightful endless homogenized suburban sprawl spread across a featureless dull landscape. There are reasons that people move to Texas; for the most part, being a nice place to live is not among them.
Or some Boney M.
Believe me, I'm supporting your primary thesis, just making the point that the situation is even worse than your article makes it appear.
Also, I'm guessing that the usual AC Microsoft shill will not have the stones to respond to this point.
The article fails to mention one important element: management. VMware's Virtual Center Server is a relatively cheap investment, with most of the cost being in the hypervisor licenses, so any serious business will buy Virtual Center. With Microsoft, by contrast, serious management is done through System Center 2012 Virtual Machine Manager. Anyone who has ever tried to license SCOM knows that SCOM licensing makes Windows licensing look sane and approachable. Nor is it cheap. In theory, Hyper-V is free, but if you want the enterprise-level features offered by VMware, you'll pay heavily for it.
Furthermore, if you want service and support, you will then pay even more for a Microsoft (or, more likely, a reseller) support contract and then pay even more for Software Assurance. I have not crunched the numbers, but it's simply unbelievable that Hyper-V offers a reasonable TCO on a feature-by-feature comparison.
There's no reason to assume the BOFH in question wasn't also getting the emails. PROTIP: many systems which send email allow more than one email address to be specified as recipients.
Caltrain is not particularly near Google, but running regular shuttles to the Mountain View campus would not be too hard. The bigger issue is getting to Caltrain if you don't already live near it. There's virtually nowhere to park at any SF Caltrain station, taking Muni to Caltrain is utterly unreliable, and even taking BART to Caltrain is not great, since, if you miss your train by three minutes, you may have an hour wait until another one comes along. On top of all these factors, Caltrain is not especially reliable and is already overcrowded during commute hours, and it's not clear that it's possible to increase the frequency of Caltrain due to the limited number of tracks and limited right-of-way down the peninsula. I'm not saying these factors can't be mitigated, but the issues with Caltrain are a key factor in the implementation of the employer shuttles.
Also, this is not just about Google. Genentech, VMware, Cisco, and a number of other companies run shuttles, and Caltrain doesn't necessarily go close to their campuses, nor are the public transit options amazing.
To continue on the theme:
I agree that the buses are not making rents go up, but they are a contributing factor: if workers can be whisked to work by comfortable, air-conditioned, Wifi-equipped bus, the long commute becomes much less onerous, especially if one's employer counts transit time as work time.
I also agree that there are opportunities for people to live elsewhere in the Bay Area, but commuting from the Berkeley/Oakland area to the South Bay is even more hideous than commuting from SF proper, so East Bay development is not a panacea.
Finally, there are definitely artificial limits on growth in SF. First, there's a legal limit on how many square feet can be built in San Francisco in a given year. Second, there are soft limits on growth in the form of the aforementioned permit processes, etc. Also, San Francisco's sewer and power infrastructure need an overhaul to support increased population densities; without significant investment in these things, there's a very hard limit to additional construction, and it's precisely this kind of improvement which is opposed by "old school" San Franciscans. It's clearly possible to achieve that kind of density (see Hong Kong, Singapore, Manhattan), and it's the only way to keep prices from skyrocketing, but as mentioned above, there's significant opposition. Actually, there's one other way to reduce demand, which is to make San Francisco unliveable, which the army of homeless people is working on, facilitated by a lack of desire to anything substantial about that issue, even by so-called progressives, but I digress.
The availability of corporate shuttles, of which the Google bus is one of the most prominent is down to terrible public transit infrastructure, congested freeways, and ridiculous commute distances. To get from San Francisco to Mountain View by way of public transit, one has to use an infrequent and unreliable commuter rail system which is serviced by an unreliable bus/tram system or by BART, which is generally reliable, but whose connection with the rail system is so tight that even a two-minute disruption significantly delays commute times. Driving to any connection point is also pretty awful, and driving to Mountain View is thoroughly wretched. While the ideal solution would be to improve public transit infrastructure by means of taxing the big corporate employers, I'm sure the big corporate employers have managed to avoid most taxation, and the public transit agencies themselves are often woefully mismanaged, leading to the current unsatisfactory situation.
On the other side of the coin, people like living in San Francisco because it has amenities like restaurants, museums, bars, and nightlife, unlike the South Bay/Peninsula, which is largely a godawful expanse of bland suburbia, so there's not much appeal for the young, affluent tech worker. Unfortunately, San Francisco is so awash in NIMBYs that actually getting new housing or infrastructure put in to offset the growth in demand is a nightmarish process of permitting and hearings which usually takes several years to resolve and which can easily be blocked by anyone who cares to raise a ruckus. The result is huge demand for an artificially-limited housing supply, leading to gross price inflation. It's also worth noting that the entirety of San Francisco fits inside seven square miles, so the available space to build upon is much more limited than many other urban environments.
The solutions are clear: build more housing, improve public transit, and have people live closer to their jobs, all of which would yield benefits to the public at large, not just employees of the big corporations. Unfortunately, those solutions are so challenging that the short-term symptoms are pretty much inescapable. Equally unfortunately, I have yet to hear a grown-up debate about the underlying issues, just name-calling and hand-wringing. Until there's a meeting of the minds between Bay Area politicians and the corporate executives of Google and the other big tech companies, no real solution is likely to be forthcoming.
Excuse me if I don't send flowers.
Hmm, if only you had access to some global network of public human knowledge that you could search. Ah well, failing that, try this link:
And significantly more expensive. If you need (or want) bulk storage, spinning rust is still the way to go.
Excellent rant, Trevor. There's one very welcome addition to the storage arena that the new vendors seem to be bringing as well, and it has to do with the answer to the question "How can you tell when a storage vendor is lying to you?" Even more recent startups like Nimble and Violin seemed to be following the old guard that way, but my dealings with some of the companies on your list have been refreshingly honest and forthright.
But the kind of portable heads-up display, usable by the general public and embodied by Google Glass, seems to have been beyond the imagination of authors, which makes it either truly innovative or a really stupid idea.
David Brin included technology very like Google Glass in Earth and at least one short story . . . back in the 1990s. He, in fact, included them as a key component of a universal surveillance society in which any sort of anti-social behavior was immediately recorded and reported by little old ladies wearing the glasses. Initially, of course, Google Glasses and whatever imitators will be worn by the technorati, but I think it's not a far leap to see them becoming commodity eyewear and thus used to enforce social norms.
Quite right, old chap! Why, looking at my work PCs, I can't say that I have more than a few dozen discrete applications installed on each of them, and a few dozen more besides on my home system. What's 100+ applications installed across three PCs between friends? Everything is Web apps! Everything!
The reason for the late announcement is simple enough: about 90% of the potential technical attendees were off in the Black Rock Desert, so there was no reason to release anything but marketing fluff at VMworld.
"Could the Reg not find someone with a clue to right about these things???"
I'm in your post, destroying your credibility.
For hunting armored zombies. Or Terminators.
What did HP do to deserve that? Meg Whitman hasn't eaten any babies that I know of.
All together now, one more time: Glasses do not make an "AR view". They do not fully superimpose over your entire vision. You get a screen in the upper-right portion of your visual field, where the display device sits. It is not physically capable of changing the things you see around you; it could only display a modified version in one small portion of your vision.
This is true now, but it may not always be so.
I believe that Seagate do have a patent on this technology, in fact, based on my discussions with a former subsidiary of theirs which makes a product that uses a version of it. I could be wrong, though.
I have not worn a watch in years because it's one more damn thing I have to keep track of. Having my timepiece on my phone makes a lot more sense to me than having a separate device, especially when I have to check the time so seldom. It strikes me, in fact, that the people who do have watches are just as likely to have been "perverted by consumerism" because the watch often fulfills one or both categories of being a status symbol or a gadget.
Way to miss the fucking point, you fucking imbecilic gobshite. Why don't you take your fucking cluelessness to some other forum where people want to read your oblivious bullshit?
(Let's see how hard I can press the Reg moderators here.)
"Cue," not "queue."
Doom doom doom doom doomity doom doom doom . . .
6 MONTHS LATER
. . . doom doom doom doom doomity doom doom doom.
"Canada does not have secret laws"
And you know this how?
"Ignore the app ecosystem and all you've got is a big Start Menu, that's the whole difference."
Wrong. The lack a Start button is actually the least of the problems with the new Start screen. It's simple enough to mouse down to the lower-left corner and click, true enough, and that's what most experienced users will probably do by default. The mainproblems with the Start screen are:
1) It is non-hierarchical; i.e., everything in creation gets splattered all over the screen. When an application installs multiple shortcuts, it's nice to have them associated with that application, not put on the top level by default.
2) It is unsorted and unsortable. I find it logical to sort things in some kind of order, say alphabetically, automatically, without having to shuffle everything around by hand.
3) It is hideous. This is, of course, a subjective viewpoint, but the default available color schemes are wretchedly ugly.
Now, to address the inevitable counter-points:
1) Yes, I know you can re-arrange icons by hand. That's fine when you have only a few applications, but I have dozens of applications with probably over a hundred icons among them. Some sort of default order is called for.
2) I don't care whether my complaints seem like minor objections to you. They constitute a non-trivial impediment to the optimal setup of my primary workspace.
3) I also know that you can install programs to return the Start menu to its pre-Win8 configuration. The availability of those programs does not negate the criticism of the Windows 8 Start screen; if anything, they support the criticism because they indicate that there is a significant market for the return of the old configuration.
"I wish everyone would get over the start screen."
I wish I could ride to work on a unicorn, but that's not going to happen either.
Winklevossen, surely; Winklevii would be the plural of Winklevius.
Right, I'm going . . .
"Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so." -- Slartibartfast
Clearly, this is primitive work on bistromathics and/or a Somebody Else's Problem Field.
I suggest you go back and think about life and the universe and contemplate the idea that convenience is not an acceptable trade-off for quality.
On that basis, you obviously would never listen to recorded music at all, because the only true way to experience music is live, and if you're not willing to go see an artist live, then you obviously don't appreciate their music, so you shouldn't listen to it at all.
Back in the real world, people often do sacrifice convenience for quality, hence the rise of things like portable media devices, camera phones, fast food, etc. What may come as a surprise to you is that using these devices does not immediately make someone an idiot; it just means that convenience has value to them.
Eadon gets a feral chihuahua?
And what if you log in from a different device or browser?
The other Reg article you posted makes no mention of the same group even being aware of the male beheading video, just that they were complaining about the double standard that it's okay to display graphic (or even "joke") violence towards women but that it's not okay to post, for example, pictures of breastfeeding or certain art. I saw nothing in the previous article indicating that the group was condoning displays of violence towards men, merely that they were choosing to focus on the female violence issue.
If you don't understand why the issue of violence against women is worth focusing on, specifically, then the ignorance, I'm afraid, is yours.
I'm not going to debate the merits of feminism, its relevance, or the issue of violence towards women in the context of society on an IT forum (although I reserve the right to change my mind), so I'm going to set everything else aside.
This just in: there are groups and organizations which are oriented towards reducing hate and violence against specific segments of society. The reason is twofold: that there is so much hate in the world that simply promoting a message of opposing hatred and violence in general has not traditionally been successful, and people tend to look after their own self-interest.
To my mind, any cause which seeks to reduce violence should be applauded. If you are oh-so-concerned about hate speech against men, why don't you do something about it besides complaining on an Internet forum? Why don't you join or form an organization devoted to reducing hate against men or humans in general?
I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, take your concern trolling elsewhere.
I completely agree with you, except change "arts" to "military" and "public art projects" to "war." Along the way, science can pick up several orders of magnitude more funding as opposed to the utter pittance supplied to the arts.
Mochizuki? Is that you?
*Looks up*. Yes, it's in Bootnotes, all right. Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?
Despite the work being done by the all-flash array vendors, it's still cheaper in some cases to keep cold data or sequential workloads on spinning rust.
You have to say his name *three* times!
Call in the airstrike.